One of the fundamental concepts of Open Source is Freedom, and "free" is probably the most misunderstood term thrown around in the world of software. There are essentially three types of software in the world today- commercial software, free software, and open source software.
Commercial software is developed by an individual or a group for the purpose of being sold. You buy the software, or more often a license to use the software in a very specific way. Microsoft Office is a prime example of this.
Free software is developed by a group or by an individual for the purpose of being distributed at no cost. Typically these are low-end introductions to a software ecosystem released in hopes of getting you to purchase their high-end, commercial product with more features. Microsoft Outlook Express is a good example of this.
Open Source software is developed by a group or by an individual with the intention that anyone with the skills can modify the original source code. Most of the time this software is distributed without cost, but not always. Some Open Source products cost money, but when you buy it you buy the whole package, not just a license to use it. The Open Source content filter called Dan's Guardian is a good example of this.
Think of it as the difference between leasing and purchasing a car. When you lease a car it's "yours" but only under certain predetermined terms. When you purchase a car it's yours to do with as you choose.
Free, and Commercial software packages are simply leased to you. They're "yours," but only under specific terms laid out in the End User License Agreement. In the case of free software, there is no cost involved, but there are restrictions. Open Source software is released and distributed with a very, very minimal set of restrictions- usually just enough to keep people from claiming other people's work as their own.
Now, here's the big question: Does it matter? Most of of the time, no it doesn't. (Let the hate mail begin)
Only a very small percentage of software users today have the technical skills and knowledge necessary to actually crack open a program and dig around in its guts and make changes to it. Open Source software allows a person to do that, but an infinitesimal percentage of people ever do. For most of us "Open" simply means "free of cost." For a very small, but very vocal minority it's a rallying cry to a holy war.
I'm an Open Source advocate, but not a zealot.
I think there's nothing wrong with the terms "Open" and "free" becoming commingled. While the power of a product may well be in it's Openness, like with Moodle or Joomla, the pragmatic reality is that they came into wide use because they are free.
Let me give you a good example of when sometimes "free" is better than "Open."
Recently Microsoft released its Microsoft Security Essentials suite of antivirus/antimalware tools. It's a very good collection of tools that integrates very tightly with Windows to provide excellent virus and malware protection while pretty much staying out of the way. It's not Open, but it's free of cost. On the Open Source side of things ClamAV has been around for years. It's a very good virus detection engine that works on lots of different operating systems.
Which of these two products do I choose on my personal computers as well on the several hundred computers I'm responsible for in my job? Microsoft Security Essentials. It's closed. It's proprietary. It's from "The Evil Empire." How could I betray my Open Source ideals and choose it over ClamAV? Because it's a better product.
It's important when choosing your software platform to have a strategy. I hear people in my line of work say things like, "We're a Microsoft shop." or "We're all on Macs." This line of thinking is just as wrongheaded as the "If it's not open it's dead." mentality.
What works for you? What's best in your environment? What fits your budget? What fits your use case? Which application or platform best fits your overall strategy? These are the questions that have to be answered. It's not as simple as "Open," "closed," "free," or "commercial."
In my work I employ all sorts of free and Open Source products, but I've never deployed something just because it's free. I look at it, investigate it, test it, and experiment with it because it's free. Then if it's good I deploy it. If the best tool for the job is a closed, proprietary, expensive, commercial solution, then I'll find a way to pay for it- and I'll likely use the money I saved by deploying free or Open Source products elsewhere.
For example, we have a 3Com VoIP phone system at my school. We've had it in place for about 10 years now. It's solid. It's robust. It works. It was expensive. There are Open Source VoIP products out there that are pretty good, and that we could have deployed at little or no cost, but after doing a lot of research I found that none of the "pretty good" ones matched the 3Com offering.
I'm not a zealot. I'm not involved in a holy war. I'm a Technology Coordinator paid to provide my students and staff with the best technology possible on a very, very meager budget. Free and Open Source tools are a big part of that, but so are commercial tools.
In the end, it doesn't matter at all if something is Open Source, free, or if it costs money. What matters is whether it fits within your overall strategy- and budget considerations are a big part of any good strategy.
I'm a founding member, former officer, and am active in a group called the "Strategic Open Source Special Interest Group." "Strategic" is a big part of that name and we didn't choose it lightly. The message of any Open Source advocate should be that Free (truly free) and Open Source tools can have a strong place in both the Business and Education worlds, but only if it fits with your organization's overall goals.
I am seeing this philosophy in action and have no doubt that you are correct. It borders on genius. It is not genius, but there are so many people missing this point in the tech world that the above appears to be genius. I am amazed at the number of well educated (and well paid) leaders in the tech community that seem to miss this point.
Totally agree with your comments! Well written!
Very nicely written. You will help many to consider their alternatives. I must admit I have little to add except that my personality requires me to look at the free stuff first. Thanks for the thoughts.
I've thought through those exact points over and over in my mind… but never were they as fluid as this. ZOMG! You are a blogger!
Now, if only we can get those textbook people to read this.
I dont believe in using open source just so I can say "I use open source and only open source". I think as a SIG, we should show people how open source can make their schools, students, and lives better. Show them what can be done with open source projects.
Take FOG for example. We switched from Ghost to FOG and never looked back. FOG has features that other products only dream of.
Second example: Google Docs. We rely on Google Docs as a district on a daily basis. Do we switch to the open source alternative just of the sake of using open source? No, but we must be careful with what information we put up there.
At the end of the day, we must do what is best for our students. If that means using a mixture of commercial, open source, and free; then so be it. I want to help my teachers maximize their students potential and prepare them for the future.
Good post Mark.
I agree that it's wise to use Open Source when possible. Why not if it performs the way you want, and it's cost effective. I have no problem blending the types of software or technologies I use. It is interesting to see what is evolving in philosophy, software, technology, and policy. There is going to be increased awareness of the needs and benefits of wisely using technology. Not just because we can, but because it enhances what we're already doing. I appreciate forums like this which allow us to dialog and further develop our ideas and awarenesses.
Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3……..
Very concise way of stating what should be obvious to tech people. But just like political debates, tech people enjoy having favorites and defending/promoting them. In my very small district I do what I can to get the very best tools for my staff and students on a shoestring budget. By going free or open source where I can (and were it make sense to), I can prioritize my budget to make sure I don’t have to say no when it really matters – in the classroom.
I also enjoy the community and support found in open source forums. You can’t ask for a nicer set of people to help troubleshoot a problem or to answer implementation questions. I always try to look for a free or open source option first before looking for the paid counterparts. But in some situations, the industry standard fits best and in some situations the open source solution is a better fit. I definitely agree with taking it on a case by case basis.
Thanks also for the FOG walkthrough at TCEA. I working on getting mine set up right now. Open Source really is a nice set of helpful folks!
Great post!
"Only a very small percentage of software users today have the technical skills and knowledge necessary to actually crack open a program and dig around in its guts and make changes to it." I've heard open source advocates say, "I don't look at the code, so it doesn't really matter that much," pointing out the benefit that it's free and not so much caring that it's open source. To me, that's a narrow view of the open source environment in general. For me, MOST of the open source software I use, I don't view the source. However, other people do and that's one of the largest benefits to something being open source. I had a discussion the other day with all of our principals and superintendent. The subject of being open source came up and we discussed a little about how this particular open source project had commercial support. A question came up about the software having a problem (ie. bug) and whether or not we should purchase support for that scenario. I mentioned that one of the greatest things about open source is that if we're using the product and we have a problem/bug, chances are likely that someone who is paying for support also has that same bug. It's somewhat likely that when they encounter the bug, they'll report it through their support contract and the company will work on the bug to get it fixed. Fixing that bug benefits EVERYONE that uses that software. Whether or not I personally view the source isn't as important to me, though I'm on one of those that likes to be able to have that option. 🙂
The project that prompted the discussion was a VoIP solution. It was Sipfoundry's sipXecs. While researching their offering, though, I found that Nortel's system is based on sipXecs, as are a few other commercial offerings. This encouraged me to puruse the sipXecs solution, and then finding out that several of the contributors sit on standards comittees for SIP and IETF, encouraged me a little more.
I'll say that I'm not one that tries to "push" people to open source, but I try my best to inform people of their options and encourage them to at least look at what options they have with open source so that they can make the "strategic" decision of whether or not the open source option fits in with their goal
I agree that, to the teacher/user, they typically don't care whether it's open source or proprietary/closed source/"free", but to me the "idea" behind a project being open source IS important, whether or not the user is the one looking at the code. But again, to the end user, I realize most of them don't really care.
Well said Jeremy. Many in society have grown complacent and accept that programs can't be changed. Why not? The greater the knowledge you have the more you can do.
Just about anyone can make basic changes and grow from there.
What if you would like the program to display your school name and logo? (Not difficult with open source; impossible with closed source.)
What if you would like one field added to or subtracted from a common query?
Why buy software and pay for the handcuffs? If those selecting software for a district do not stand up for their rights as consumers, how can the situation ever improve?
We are in public education using taxpayer money.It would be better to do what is in their best long term interest rather than what makes things comfortable now (supporting a proprietary system that seeks to maximize products at ISD expense).
Nice article and very well written. I would have to say that I lean more to the open source side of things because I am one of those people that, on the off chance that I want something the program doesn't offer, will dig into the source code to make a small change or tweak. I've even had some of my minor changes in one web based program make it into the main code base. One thing that really irritates me is when there is a bug in a closed source program and I can't fix it because it is closed source. It's only when I can't make something free or open source work that I turn to the closed source solutions, although sometimes I will just make something myself if the need is simple. One very notable exception to this is the print management software at the university that I work at, which I found and fell in love with, via the trial version. It was a reasonably priced, full featured solution that was rock solid and fit our needs perfectly. That was one purchase I was happy to recommend to my boss.