Understanding the Open Source & Free Software Movements - Essay Sample

Introduction

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit organization whose aim is to promote open-source software. It was founded in 1998 by Eric Raymond, a well-known personality in the open-source movement, and his partner Bruce Perens. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is another non-profit organization that advocates for the development, amendment, and distribution of free software applications and programs with no restrictions. It was founded in 1985 by Richard Stallman as part of the free software movement (Soderberg, 2015). The two organizations differ in several ways.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

FSF is quite distinct from the OSI. While the two organizations have a similar history and motivation, FSF is based on moralistic and anti-establishment viewpoints. On the other hand, OSI perceives its ends as more business-oriented and pragmatic. It is actively engaged in inducing public advocacy and education, building the open-source community, and promoting awareness on the importance non-proprietary software. To set up an open-source environment across the world, OSI supports and preserves the Open Source Definition and also offers the Open Source Software Certification Program. For a certain software to attain this OSI certification, its distribution has to be done using a license that upholds the legal right to freely modify, use, and redistribute it.

The free software movement was set up to push for the development of free software. It is credited with liberating users to freely design and share their own programs, and was a major driver behind the FSF. The FSF strives to instigate rejection of propriety software that cannot be altered, published, or shared legally. The organization also employs a team of in-house programmers whose role is to develop programs and applications that can be altered and distributed by end-users. FSF defines software as one that users are free to copy, run, study, improve, change, and distribute. The term 'free' refers to these freedoms rather than price. The vast majority of free software does not cost money. A reason for this is that companies that sell software tend to limit the users' freedom to copy, improve, or distribute what they purchase.

The OSI has ten-point Open-Source Definition and presents a certification mark to compatible apps. While the open-source movement does not disregard free software values, it appears to be more interested in open collaboration. The ultimate goal is for developers and companies to make the code for all their software freely available. If that happens, then users can trust the programs running in their computers. Many of the ethics still apply, although the OSI is less confrontational and more willing to make compromises in order to make adoption widespread.

While open-source and free software movements are in agreement over most of the core values, they differ when it comes to defining freedom. The FSF has outlined four freedoms that it perceives to be essential, and embraces copyleft in order to protect them. This legally deters users from redistributing free software fitted with additional restrictions. This principal is enshrined within the GNU General Public License. Any person who uses GPL code is also supposed to release his or her own creations as GPL. Many of the fundamental programs that make free operating systems such as Linux work started as part of the GNU Project. Most of the applications are licensed in accordance with the GPL.

Free software licenses also happen to be open-source. However, not all open-source licenses require the developer to share his or her code. Some allow developers to create closed source applications using an open source code, a good example being the MIT License. Such non-copyleft licenses are referred to as permissive licenses. A FSF advocate may think of the utilization of free software to design non-free software as limiting a user's freedom. However, an open-source advocate may be more compelled to perceive a permissive license as truly free.

Identify three differences between the GPL version three, and the Apache Licence and describe them in your own words.

General Public License (GPL) is one of the most widely used open-source licenses. It was created by Richard Stallman to prevent the GNU software from being made proprietary, and specifically implements his copyleft concept. The Apache License is another open-source software license created by the Apache Software Foundation. It is widely deployed, popular, and backed by a strong community. It allows users to freely modify, use, and distribute any product licensed by the Apache Software Foundation, although they are supposed to follow its terms and conditions.

The Free Software Foundation strives to ensure that GPL protects users' freedom to alter and distribute a source code as they see fit. This license is based on four freedoms: the freedom to use a source code for any purpose, make modifications, share the source code with others, and share alterations. Contrary to popular public opinion, GPL does not forbid users from selling derivative programs based on an original source code. Rather, it merely stipulates that the source code should be freely available to any user who wants it. This is known as 'reciprocity obligation.'

GPL version three is compatible with other licenses, including Apache 2.0. According to the Free Software Foundation, this version also protects in several way that distinguishes it from Apache and other open-source licenses. For one, it prohibits manipulations of the source code, thus deterring end users from making any modifications. GPL version three also abides by the guidelines of international laws such as the European Copyright Directive and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This makes it much easier for developers outside the United States to use the license. Lastly, this version deters companies such as Microsoft from encroaching on patent rights, and prevents them from collecting royalties for use of free software. The FSF has also released a more permissive form of GPL version three called the Lesser General Public License (LGPL).

The Apache 2.0 license was released in 2004 as a replacement for the original version 1.1. This license is permissive in nature and clearly stipulates what makes up contributions, derivative works, and legal entities. It also clearly outlines the terms applied to the granting of patent rights. Notably, in case someone files a lawsuit for patent infringement against a certain entity, all patent licenses given to developers under the license are discontinued as of the date the lawsuit is filed (Carillo, Huff & Chawner, 2017).Another notable aspect of Apache 2.0 is that it has strict rules guiding redistribution rights. For instance, it specifically requires a user who receives any derivative work to be given a copy of the license. A notable rule is that a developer must provide an unequivocal statement validating that certain files have been modified. Also, the source form of a certain derivative work is expected to retain all patent, attribution, and copyright notices from the original software's source form. The other rule is that, should the original work have attribution notices, a developer is expected to ensure that any derivative works also have the NOTICE file. A developer includes his or her own copyright statements and attribution notices with the file in question. The rules clearly defined by Apache 2.0 on redistribution and patent rights are quite unique in nature.

Discuss the use of the GPL3 in a commercial product.

Users can license their commercial applications under the GPL version 3 license as long as they comply with its terms. The GNU project encourages users who redistribute free software to charge any price they desire. However, it is worth noting that this only applies to the product's executable form as opposed to its source code. This is clearly spelled out in sub-sections 6a and 6b of the GPL. If a user wishes to sell a binary copy of certain GPL software program, he or she is supposed to include its complete source code. Alternatively, the user must include a formal, written offer valid for at least three years, and offer it to whoever possesses the binary (Foss, Frederiksen & Rullani, 2016).

To use the GPL version 3 in a commercial product, an individual must provide a copy of the complete sources for a price that does not exceed the reasonable cost of delivering it physically. The individual can also provide access to a copy of the sources from a network server for free. It is worth bearing in mind that all free software users enjoy the same freedoms. The people who buy the product are just as free as the seller to make copies and sell them at any desired price, or offer them for free. However, this does not give sellers the right to fool buyers or offer them misleading information.

When version 2 of GPL was first released, some individuals in the open source community commented on the issue of a supposed loophole in the license. The so-called loophole enabled Software as a Service (SaaS) companies to integrate the license's open source libraries without having to share their code. GPL version 3 intentionally left in this loophole because of the fact that allowing users to interact with a certain piece of software over the network cannot be considered as distribution. The GPL's triggering effect is distribution. When there is no distribution, a user is perceived to be merely using the software. Given the act of running the GPL code is not subject to the license, the user is not compelled to share any modifications they make to the code.

The GPL is a viral, or copyleft license. This means that if user's work is a derivative of, or is based on, a GPL component, and he or she distributes the work, it has to be presented subject to the license. This includes the user's obligation to release the work's source code while also offering recipients the GPL rights to alter and distribute the whole code. Also, the source code released by the user must be under the same GPL. When it comes to ASP (Application Service Providers) or SaaS, the GPL stipulates that only the parties that distribute modified versions of GPL code abide by the license. Simply put, making software available to other users via remote interaction is not considered distribution and thus does not induce the GPL.

The GLP SaaS loophole was closed when companies were obligated to make their source codes accessible and available to the public whenever they are using GPL-licensed components on a server linked to the network. This is usually the case with ASP and SaaS. When it comes to SaaS in relation to the GPL, the triggering factor for enforcing the license is distribution. The GPL loophole at one time elicited mixed reactions. Some experts were of the opinion that it was not really needed. Others felt that it was more beneficial to commercial software giants than it was to smaller businesses and the open source community.

What Area of the Software Industry do you think would mostly benefit from engaging more with the Open Source World, and why, in your own words is this the case?

One area of the software industry that would mostly benefit from engaging more with the Open Source World is big data analytics. Big data is an umbrella term that describes the gathering, analysis, and storage of huge amounts digital information in order to improve operations. The process of evaluating such digital information and converting it into useful business intelligence is referred to as big data analytics. Companies can use this data to obtain actionable information that can be applied in real-time to optimize applications from the cloud, boost business...