Open Source: An old, yet new model for providing people with software. Open Source is a term that is similar to Free Software. Free Software does exist, in the American Patriot's sense of freedom. No restrictions, free from proprietary restraints forced upon it by those who have contributed to the various “Free Software” projects that exist.

Free Software, as defined by the GNU ( pronouncedGuh Noo) GPL (General Public License) is software that anyone can download, use, modify, and sell to their pleasing. They just have to allow others to pass along the software and even edit it..Software that has been defined under that license, however, cannot use proprietary software or drivers, supposedly in order to keep the software 100% free.  (Gnu.org) Proprietary according to Dictionary.com is something that is:

5.
manufactured and sold only by the owner of the patent, formula, brand name, or trademark associated with the product: proprietary medicine.
6.
privately owned and operated for profit: proprietary hospitals.

Meaning only the owner can sell it or modify it (Apple, for example, with their Leopard) because they own the patents and secret formula that makes OSX OSX (except certain parts, which they copied off the Open Source Project FreeBSD) “Free” Software, this is not the case, anyone can take a “Free” Software project, modify, and change it, even sell it. Yet the seller has to allow the user to copy, redistribute, and change the Free Software. They just have to include the license agreement that originally came with the downloaded software/source code. (gnu.org) The license included in a program is something that states how a program can or cannot be used, and if not agreed to, the user usually isn't allowed to install the accompanying program, sometimes though not always, preventing a user from installing said program illegally (thepiratebay.org) Since the supply of a program is unlimited (due to the internet) anyone owning the license to a proprietary piece of software can set the price to effectively whatever the owner wish, though usually given the demand of the product. Some good examples to such price controlling is Microsoft Office. Although Microsoft can effectively supply unlimited amounts of the software, it is still very expensive software, mainly because: A) The competitors to the software are not widely known to consumers B) Nearly every company that is up to date needs this software.  

With “Free” Software under the GNU GPL (or LesserGPL), such is not the case. No matter how many people download use or edit the software, the license must stay the same (even if sold in a box for retail value) meaning the purchasers must have the ability to edit the software.(GNU.org) “ [As} The GNU GPL states;

“....[t]he licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software – to make sure the software is free for all users “

The license proves that there is an alternative model for software development which strongly opposes the commercial view of companies” ([5] 8)

     As Richard Stallman, owner of GNU and the Free Software Foundation stated, “Instead of privatizing software [GNU] becomes a means of keeping software free” from restraint (8).
Software was not always privatized (proprietary) in fact, “Stallman form(ed) GNU and [the] FSF (Free Software Foundation) in order to try to rebuild the hardware and software community that was around before the commercialization of software” (page 7). The spread of the personal computer itself eventually led to the commercialization of software since (most) users didn't have programming skills and depended on softwares to use them, they were willing to pay for (restrictive) software, thus making it worthwhile to make a software company that makes and sells copy-written software. Such companies are (not limited to) Microsoft, Apple, Autodesk, Adobe, Daz, and so forth. Copyright is there to limit a user's ability to copy, reproduce, use, and resell a product or even idea. The problem which “Free” Software is made to fix is that a user cannot delve into a problem and fix it if there is one, even if the user has the skills to fix .

The term “Open Source” was originally meant as a replacement for the term “Free Software” yet turned into a different (although similar) project than “Free” Software, as GNU.org has stated:

“[T]he two terms describe almost the same category of software. But they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the free software movement, however, non-free software is a social problem, and moving to free software is the solution”

The mix-up that is mentioned is that people take “Free Software” as if it were “Free Beer” prompting the creation of the term “Open Source” which eventually forged it's own path on a more business-like tone, where the software (If under the Open Source Initiative's definition) may use proprietary parts for it's coding. The term Open Source itself is also more recognizable and easier to understand even though the original principle was “Free Speech, not Beer” (Free Software Slogan, GNU.org)

Open Source, a more broad term than “Free Software” has run into problems like any other widespread movement or organization will, mainly large companies using closed source (proprietary) software trying to  stop the spread through suit by alleged-copyright infringement, and companies taking Open Source Software, (breaking the licenses) closing the source, and copyrighting, and selling the software for retail gain. The latter, in it's own, has been solved a few times in court, in the favor of Open Source Licensing. (2)

By the Open Source License, one must allow free reproduction of the software, and for it to be considered Open Source, in the license, one must state it is Open Source and let the user use it in any way that is not illegal, letting the user change the program at the user's will. (cite)

This is possible through the GNU GPL, the Open Source Initiative's definition of Open Source and the basic licensing that are included in the program (defining it as Open Source)

The Open Source Movement (including the “Free” Software Movement) is a fairly large movement. Linus Torvaldis (Creator of the Linux Kernel, the meat to Operating Systems such as SuSe, Ubuntu, Mandriva, and Red Hat, all Open Source and separate Operating Systems from Mac OS and MS Windows) himself said:

“Linux today has millions of users, thousands of developers, and a growing market. It is used in embedded systems, robotic devices, it has flown on the space shuttle. I would [sic] like to I knew this would happen, that is is all in the plan for world domination. But honestly, this has all taken me a bit by surprise. I was much more aware of the transition from one to a hundred users than a hundred to a million users” (2).

Then comes the inevitable question: Does Open Source have any impact on the business world?” The answer is yes. Almost all serious IT companies use Open Source Software for their products and services ([4] 13-15).

Every time Microsoft releases a new closed-source Desktop Operating System (Such as Windows Vista) the market shares of Red Hat, a company that lives and breathes Open Source, gets relatively large bursts in value. A quick search for Red Hat in Yahoo! Business will show that the company had, when Windows ME came out in 2000, hit an all-tie high of up to $50 a share, more worth than Microsoft's stock at the time! Novell, a company in the Salt Lake Valley, is another company that advocates Open Source. Software, even coming out with their own popular SuSe Linux Distribution (A separate Operating System from Apple OS, Windows, and other Operating Systems based on the Linux Kernel but with various differences, such as an online 1-click install button at the SuSe Site) (novell.com/linux)





Companies that back such models make money through  selling their products in Asian countries where the internet is not so prevalent as it is in First-world countries and the people are just learning about computers. Such companies, however, make the largest amount of money through payed support and feature adding so if a user doesn't have the time to wait for someone to add a feature or upgrade to an Open Source project, the company will do it for them.

If one has never heard of Open Source, here is a list of groups of people that use Open Source Software: Small and Large businesses use the OSS (Open Source Software) for servers (Apache Server, which holds approximately 70% of the market) because there are nearly no limitations on the number of times you can install it, what you can use it on, and what you can use it for. . Even NASA uses Open Source in their space shuttles, and developing countries use it especially due to it's low cost. Millions of users across the world have OSS on their home computers and laptops.

Open Source is a large project, the term itself including “Free” Software. Even Microsoft is intimidated by the effects if it is not contained (Halloween Papers, a collection of deep intrinsic looks by Microsoft into the Open Source community, the possible quality achievable by Open Source and what it could do to their business. Ever time Microsoft releases a new Operating System the stocks of Open Source companies jump and the so does the number of Home Users using Open Source Operating Systems (Based off of Linux) There is also an Open Source solution for nearly every Closed-Source Proprietary product. A user can even put Linux on their Ipod, defying Apple's AppleOS. There are also legal boundaries companies cannot cross stating that they may not take and copyright the software themselves because it is copy-written and protected to various extents through a “copyleft” license such as the GNU GPL. This very model has also held up in court, holding that the model is legally sound.([4] 35)


Dason Woodhouse









Sources:


[5] Muffato, Moreno. Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach Imperial Colleg Press, 2006


[4] Valimaki, Mikko. The Rise of Open Source Licensing: A challenge to the Use of Intelletual Property in the Software Industy Turre Publishing, 2005

http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=cache:iwfpihYLgPsJ:www.idi.ntnu.no/emner/tdt10/OSS-MISQ.pdf+Open+Source+Money+companies


Other Sources Shall be uploaded when I find the time.