When a carpenter-turned-software-developer, like me, decides to take a piece of wood, whether it be from the field, a lumber yard or the local hardware store, I want to have artistic license to create with that piece wood whatever I like. It is important to me that I am at liberty to use it for myself, or freely sell whatever I make with it to whoever is interested in my handy work. The new owner now again has the liberty to use what was bought in any way possible or repurpose it into something more unique. And should the owner feel so inclined, he can again sell it for profit to another buyer. The original carpenter, me, received revenue for my labor as well as the second carpenter. If carpenter B just resold the original piece for a profit, it is the consumer’s prerogative where he wants to buy. Perhaps carpenter B just made it more available to the consumer by having it in a more convenient location (this could be at the retail shop where I sold my furniture) or painted it in custom color. But nowhere in the production line does wood come with a tag on it that says the consumer may no longer change it, sell it or even own it.

This introduction serves as a parable that explains the simple logic behind free and open source software (FOSS) licensing. Changing careers in no way change the value I place upon liberty. This following technical explanation is in order that you will understand the various names and acronyms used. I quote, ““Open source software” is sometimes also called “Free software”, “libre software”, “Free/open source software (FOSS or F/OSS)”, and “Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS)”. The term… “Free software” has been sometimes misinterpreted as meaning “no cost”, which is not the intended meaning in this context. (“Free” in “Free software” refers to freedom, not price.)” (Mardjan, Jahan)

There are a few fundamental freedoms that classify software as being free and open source. We will look at the second freedom first, specifically section A. “The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.” (Stallman) Transparency of the code base is imperative to build trust and invite community collaboration. The incentive behind this is to get as many eyeballs on the code as possible. (ESR) To truly benefit from the free and open source objective there needs to be a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base which in turn will bring about a more stable, secure and bug-free code base. (ESR)

This brings us to the point of software security and privacy. It has been debated for many years whether free and open source software is necessarily more secure than proprietary software. The answer is not clear cut because of many variables that can negatively influence security beyond the control of the developer, but open source software projects like Linux and Apache Server has proved over and over; when FOSS software is done right with enough feet to trample its code base it has the potential to be the most secure systems in an increasingly hostile Cyber world.

A transparent code base has become a prerequisite for more secure solutions because of the simple fact that the code is visible to anyone everywhere and this allows for more people to track down sources of security vulnerabilities and issues are “identified, fixed and propagated” much faster and more efficiently. Updegrove states that open source software is increasingly used by defense, financial and other users that place the highest priority on security. (Updegrove) Similarly Mardjan & Jahan found “ ...a trend towards adopting open source solutions for security and privacy protection. Governments worldwide cannot depend and trust on closed source software for their security infrastructure anymore… So open source solutions for controlling security and privacy are slowly but steady becoming the new de facto standard.” (Mardjan, Jahan) An article by Stefan Thorpe notes “Add high security, continuous editing, and innovative upgrades to the collaborative nature of open source, and you have a recipe for success. While some people may argue that the nature of its openness means it is impossible to keep secure, many consider the opposite to be true. Bugs are identified and dealt with quickly and efficiently by an army of global programmers.” (Thorpe) Lastly, a study done by Homeland Security to determine if open source is necessarily more secure because the code base is transparent found that open source code offers little incentive for hackers to victimize FOSS projects and that neither is less secure because “many security attacks are independent of the source code”. (Clarke, Russell, et al. 30) What they did find true however is that open source reinforces sound security practices because of the exposure it enjoys as many people that get involved and provide the users as well as the community with “reusable, secure and working code”. (Clarke, Russell, et al. 30)

Living in the Cyber age the right to privacy has become a very hot topic as it is closely related to security. The American Bill of Rights in its 4th Amendment implies that the United States Government has the mandate to protect personal privacy. (US Const. amend. IV) In a similar way does the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) purpose to protect the use and movement of personal data. It states “The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a fundamental right.” (GDPR. Recital 1) Regardless of this, those who work or socialize on computers and the internet are being bombarded daily with countless privacy breaches unknown to the indiscriminate user. Sometimes privacy is even sacrificed for the sake of security. In September 2015 AVG, an antivirus software provider, updated their privacy policy to make it more transparent. So doing they basically made it clear that they sell user (anonymized) data to keep their free version for free. (Osborne) Don’t look down upon them too much as Avast makes similar statements, though less specific, not mentioning browser and search history data. (Temperton)

Every person has an intrinsic right to privacy that should be protected from the overreach of other people and institutions into the individual’s private life for either malicious intent or the purpose of self-gain. In “Fourteen Reasons Privacy Matters” Trina Magi lays out, through various scholarly articles, very important reasons why you should be concerned about your privacy, not just online but in many aspects of personal life as it influences you as the individual, your personal relationships as well as society. Magi concludes that above and beyond the personal reasons why privacy should matter to you, like protecting an individual from the overreach, self-ownership, freedom to choose, preventing victimization of people through categorization and others; privacy has the value building and maintaining of healthy relationships and the support of a more just, democratic, and tolerant society. (Magi). For these reasons the focus should be turned to free and open source software, not because it is the perfect, bug free, vulnerability free option but rather because of this one principle whereby it abides and it is that of freedom. Speaking of freedom; free and open source software “campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.” (Stallman)

Researching free and open source software it becomes evident that the many benefits that can come from the model and concept of libre software is normally manifested in projects that have a credible, large and vibrant community who constantly labor to keep the project current, secure, and performing at its best. These projects are not just comparable to its proprietary counterparts but can excel on every level. In an exploratory study on the benefits and drawbacks of open source software by Morgan & Finnegan they interviewed 13 firms in the European secondary software sector. Their findings were tabled, and regarding quality they found that the “majority of interviewees found quality beneficial in terms of enhanced quality from peer reviews and the quality of developers and testers. Two companies felt this could only be applied to top-tier, mature OSS products (e.g. Linux)”. (Morgan & Finnegan)

Thorpe concludes why you should choose open-source software:

Turning back the pages of history to where it all started for the open source movement in 1969 we see Unix that transformed into Linux. Another pivot point in history for free software development was back in 1983 when Richard Stallman, after a squabble with a printer program, purposed to make software free to all and launched the GNU project. Stallman set down the freedoms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) and started rewriting Unix and Linus Torvalds added the “Linux” kernel which was fundamental for the needed integration between hardware and software. This set an important standard of collaboration that characterizes open-source software development.

Today open-source collaboration has taken on another dimension. Now closed-source companies need to start adapting a collaborative open-source mindset to stay relevant. One example of this is Microsoft acquiring Github in 2018. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said, “Microsoft is a developer-first company, and by joining forces with GitHub we strengthen our commitment to developer freedom, openness and innovation.” In 2019/20 Microsoft went a step further. Enter the Arctic Code Vault. GitHub’s most recent archive program, partnering with Microsoft Research and others, took a snapshot on February 2, 2020 of every active GitHub repository and stored it on silver halides on polyester in 3,500-foot reals in it’s arctic code vault for 1,000 years. Microsoft’s Project Silica plans to extend its longevity to 10,000 years. On their website, GitHub Archive Program, they make the statement that “the world is powered by open source software. It’s our hope that it will, both now and in the future, further publicize the worldwide open source movement; contribute to greater adoption of open source and open data policies worldwide” (GitHub) Open source software can no longer be ignored. As the code lay frozen close to the Global Seed Vault it gives another picture of how FOSS compares to natural resources which are cherished by the world, both being critically valuable yet unrestrained in their usefulness and opportunity at the same time.

Linux and Apache were the front-runners from the beginning of the open source revolution, and today these projects are still the most used open-source projects due to its stability and functionality. It is easy to derive from this that the sooner open code conventions are adapted by a project the faster a community will grow around the project. And as more people start using specific open source software products, the greater will be the incentive to maintain the applicable code base. An example of this is Joomla Component Builder (JCB), a Vast Development Method (VDM) project, that came on the scene only a couple of years ago. It started out as a private, in-house development to build Joomla components faster for a one-man business. After reaping incredible advantages above and beyond it’s competition, VDM decided to make the code open-source to get other developers on board to make JCB even more powerful. Still this was not enough to be noticed in a sea of similar component creators, and no-one really believed it to be what it promised. The only option was to make the code not just open but also free, literally free. Only then did some heads start to turn. (VDM.io) This is a little in-house story about the writer’s own experience within the open-source community.

Opportunity for ingenuity affords the developer artistic freedom when using and developing free and open software. “Access to the source code facilitates more innovation; it produces ideas and encourages technical innovation while also creating more opportunities for innovation.” (Morgan, Finnegan)

Open source communities welcome and facilitate open learning. Knowing that software development is an ever and fast growing field of study, the communities that maintain FOSS projects “encourages innovation through collaboration”. (BigCommerce) Community-based development gives inexperienced and upcoming developers the opportunity to work side-by-side with seasoned specialists, and learn from their expertise. The code is open for all to learn from providing an educational platform for hands-on learning where only personal effort will limit the interested individual.

There will be critics, and some criticism is even justifiable. Criticism has a strengthening effect and this has been true for the free and open source philosophy as well. When there are vulnerabilities it should be know and get fixed. No one needs to get offended but rather the code base grows stronger and more resilient.

One specific criticism that needs to be addressed here is the question about how will you make money when you give away your work for free? Bob Roebling had this realization when he switched to open source: “Open source had very little to do with making money, and it was more about creating a culture that could be adopted where people cared more about their reputation to help others than they did about money.” (Roebling) Agreed, but still one needs to eat, and there is a definite answer for this. Since the inception of free software the idea was never that it will necessarily be free of charge but free as in liberated. This does not limit opportunities but rather multiplies them in the open source community. At VDM we develop software for revenue. The code remains free for customers to get other developers that can continue to advance their software. VDM runs a community project that is literally free as in “gratis” but each and every developer who uses our program can receive revenue from it. Moreover the improvements that are made to the project benefits all.

To conclude we need to look again at what the carpenter experiences when he takes wood to make something from it, and see if it really measures up to the free and open source model.