Blaglash.com

Ah, yes.  Open Source.  The Utopia of the software world.  The land in which all software is free, and all bugs are patched quickly.

At least that’s what it used to mean.  Or at least what it still means to some people some of the time.

For better or worse, the term Open Source has changed drastically since it’s humble beginnings, and it’s time we think up some new words.

The Five Tenants of Open Source (As I See Them):

1. The software is free.
2. The source code is available for free download.
3. Bugs can be tracked, ticketed, patched, and added to the project at large.
4. There is no direct commercial gain from the software itself.
5. There are no paid employees working full time on the project.

True Open Source

“True Open Source” as I’m calling it here, are what most people think of when they hear the phrase.  The kind of software project like Ruby on Rails, where the application can be downloaded for free, the source code can be checked out for free, bugs can be ticketed and fixed (and then added to Rails core), where no one party is making money from the framework itself but many are making money from iterations of it, and where, finally, not one person is working as their full time job.  In other words, a true open source project in every sense of the definition.

This is what we think when we hear Open Source, so it seems strange that the word gets thrown around to mean a few other things.

Kinda Sorta (if you squint just right) Open Source

But then where does that leave projects like Firefox or Ubuntu?

Certainly the software can be downloaded for no charge and the source code checked out, but what if you find a bug?  Firefox has a system in place to automatically send them a bug ticket and Ubuntu asks you to file it on their message boards, but what then?  Well, their respective core teams (and occasional full-time paid employees) will check out your bug or delegate it to someone else in the community.  Not the farthest cry in the world from what I’m calling “True Open Source,” but it still seems like we need a new word for this kind of massive-scale “open source” project.  Particularly when you mix in multi-million dollar revenues, of course.

So clearly it’s not to say that these projects are any less Utopian than their TOS contemporaries, but all of a sudden there’s a giant purple elephant in the room when you begin discussing these huge projects in relation to their hobby-weekend-side-project buddies.

It’s ethical, it’s nice, it’s great that big companies are making quality free software, but at the end of the day we need a new word.  These projects are not True Open Source.

Open Business

Which leads us to our age’s biggest Open Source peculiarity.  When the term is used as a verb instead of an adjective.  You know: when companies “Open Source” their application’s source code.

Here’s where things get very strange very fast and when I think we need a new term the most.

I think Open Business works best, but I hope someone comes up with something catchier.

Now, a company “Open Sourcing” their applicaton’s source code does not by any stretch of the definition make their application Open Source (hence the conundrum).

If a page were to time out due to a JavaScript bug on Reddit,where would I go to submit my bug patch to integrate into Reddit core?

Nowhere, of course, and my copy of a few hundred lines of Python code on my desktop don’t bring me any closer to contributing to the overall stability of Reddit’s application at all.

What Reddit is doing by allowing their source code to be downloaded isn’t even really a marketing move so much as it is a business move. A thumbed-nose and middle finger to competitors and a nice week or so of publicity surrounding the press release.

Companies are able to open their source code for public download because a) it makes them look friendlier to the consumer, b) makes them look fearless to competitors, and c) it does not change anything at all about their application’s functionality at the end of the day.

It’s smoke in mirrors.

And while I still don’t think anybody could possibly raise any problems or exceptions to any business opening up their source code for download, the fact that the downloader still remains far removed from the day to day development work means that you haven’t actually “Open Sourced” anything.

And that’s why I think it’s worth the time spent thinking up a new term.

Sure, the Open Business guys won’t call it that, but what about us small bloggers and tiny journalists?  Wouldn’t it make it much easier to our readers and to each other to more openly and rationally address the level of Open Source that is going on when we write our stories?

Hell, you can’t even write a story on Open Source without discussing the application’s source license, and that means absolutely nothing.

But that’s for another time.