FOSS

Free and Open Source Software, for those of you who've never heard of it before, is a movement in the software development community that endorses "free" software. Not quite "free" as in "free beer" (though that is often the case, too), but "free" and in "free speech." It's not a new idea by any means, but it is something that people are often at ends about. Open source software means that the source code for the software is available to the user to see, modify, etc.

Why? Why is it that something so "obviously" beneficial (or dangerous) as free speech is something that often spurned by pundits (from Sanskrit पण्डित, "one who is learned")? To do that, we have to look at what aspects of open source exist. According to an article on open source, and Microsoft's interest in it (Linux.com), there are three essential aspects to the idea of "open source." Firstly, there's the community, the people who believe in the idea of open source and who provide source, advice, opinions, and general patterns of practice. Secondly, there's the open source development model, which includes practices on how to develop code and build programs that are conducive to the ideas of open source. In short, it's making something that is able to be released to others so that the source is understandable and usable. Lastly, there's the stack, or the collection of software that actually exists (and, as Linux.com politely reminds us) and competes with the big names.

On the one side, you have a group of people who offer their creations, much like art, to be enjoyed and improved upon by others. Each user is free to tweak things how they see fit for their own system. They also gain an insight about more complex interactions between software and hardware. And, while knowledge for the sake of knowledge is great, it's more practical to use that knowledge for other projects, projects that find their way back into the community for someone else.

Don't be under the impression that it's only for free (as in beer), too. There are many companies that provide source for their software once you buy it, and there are restrictions on redistributing that work as well. How much of that practice can be considered FOSS is debatable, but the practice persists. Why should it not?

And here's where the opponents come in. The programmers that work hard on their code deserve to be rewarded for it, and in a practical way, that reward must be cash. They have their own lives, mouths to feed, and bills to pay. If their company can't survive and provide a product, they're at a loss. Is it any different from paying for music? And for those that download, is that really fair to the people who created it? Then, there's the record company to be considered. It is, after all, their equipment that everything gets recorded on and put together.

Now you can imagine how big this is. It's not just about the people who run Linux and shun Microsoft (or Apple), and it's not about those who end up downloading DRM-free music instead of coughing up $0.99 a song on iTunes, even if it's cheaper than leaving a $20 donation at their band's website.

It's also not about who's right or wrong, the guy who programs so he can feed his kids, or the guy who just wants his computer to do what it should? It's about us, as people, and our desire to take what we're given and make the most of it. This applies to all of us, even if it's in such differing areas as money or philosophy. And, it's you who has to go to bed at night thinking about the consequences of your actions.

Something I've learned in psychology is the occurrence of "diffusion of responsibility." When people are in large groups and no explicit responsibility is given, people will often disregard things occurring. Murders even occur without anyone standing up to stop them. Heroes, then, can be considered those who will take action despite lack of support in these circumstances. And, for better or worse, we must also take action. It's important in the long run to pick a stance and go with it. If you learn something along the way, feel free to change that stance. But really, if you're not thinking about it, how can you expect anyone else to?

The words of Martin Niemöller come to mind. Of course, it's easy to cite something drastic to prove your point. Then again, I don't think history is made with moderate points-of-view.

As the technological "have's," we do have a responsibility to carry out this kind of thinking to the "have-not's." Or, to carry over some thought from them to our specific situation. There's not going to be an "anarchist coder" revolution, nor will there be the "iron fist" of capitalist programmers. But, does that really matter? If we don't speak up for what we believe in, how can we legitmately complain?

And, I'll leave you with one final thought: Is just anybody entitled to voice their opinion?