If you think of open-source software, you probably think of the costs (free), but that is not the full story. There is a whole ecosystem of both selflessness, selfishness and moral ideals that matter. I sketched four things that have learned the use of Linux about free and open-source software.
Open-source software takes many forms
People often consider open source software as free of charge and having accessible source code; However, they often do not consider that software licenses can also have political motivations. The term “open source” does not describe all these aspects adequately. To demystify these problems, various important factors can be understood.
The difference between free software and open-source software
The two most important terms are “free software” and “open-source software” (Oss). There is a significant overlap between their meanings, whereby both freedom are given to change and distribute the source. The distinction lies in their focus: free software emphasizes the political aspects of software, while Oss focuses on the practical aspects.
To get an idea of the political nature of free software, you can read about their assessment of non-free licenses-here is a fragment of the JSON license assessment of GNU:
This is the license of the original implementation of the JSON format for data exchange. This license uses the expat license as a basis, but adds a clause that is mandatory: “The software will be used forever, not bad.” This is a user restriction and therefore conflicts with freedom 0. The restriction may not be -unable to do so, but we cannot assume that. The license is therefore not free.
Oss is fundamentally only software, but free software arrives more closely with free speech in a way that protects the rights of users. Both approaches enable the user to change software and distribute the way they want, but free software has a deeper philosophy.
Free and open-source software combines both
Free and open-source software (FOSS) functions as an umbrella term that encourages both “free software” and “open-source software”, hence the name. It contains the four essential software freedoms from the free software document, together with the provisions in the open-source definition.
Source-available software is not free (as in freedom)
Source is a separate fourth category that can use its own or double license model. I consider source-available software as essentially open-source patented code. Many self-hosted developer services are released under a source-available license, which usually contains a form of supplier lock.
Summary
Free software and open-source software share an important overlap, but free software focuses on political aspects FOSS includes both. “Source available” simply means that the source is available for reading, but not necessarily something that goes further.
Foss -Developers are selfless
Software development requires considerable efforts. Most people do not recognize that developing an application into a usable condition (minimally viable product or MVP) can cost hard work for months. Furthermore, developing until it is really useful, often requires years of hard work. It is not just about adding new functions; It is also an endless game of Mack-a-Mole to crush bugs. This explains why the development cycle never ceases it represents a long-term obligation that requires substantial effort. Performing all this work requires dedication, but doing free requires exceptional passion and selflessness.
Without the selfless contributions of FOSS developers, a considerable part of our economy would collapse. The infrastructure that supports banks, online stores, cloud services, websites, telephones, toasters and smartwatches is usually on Foss’s shoulders. It is the tireless efforts of these developers, in particular those within the Linux ecosystem, who keep the wheels on the car.
Large companies will exploit foss
There are many companies that trust strongly on foss but give nothing for it. Although that can be forgiven for small companies, it is unacceptable for large, multi-billion dollars. Foss thrives on cooperation, so such companies must feel a strong obligation, but often not. The web browser is a often over -headed area; Large companies are often dependent on hundreds of small projects to retain their company vision on the internet, but they do not even offer minimal sponsorship to those who consistently provided them and the community in general.
Another concerning what companies sometimes do is that they put on a foss mask and masquerade as do-gooders, who project an ethical audience image. More often than not, they only act in their own interest, which usually comes up as seller lock.
Consider Android, which is built on a core of Foss, but Google has a deep -rooted patented canal that has been dug around it. This system limits the freedom of users by controlling the surrounding ecosystem; It limits what you can do with the software via supplier lock-in. That supplier lock-in is a big barrier for adapted ROMs that try to solve privacy problems. It is not surprising that Android is gradually closed more. Although Google’s actions are legal, they are not in the spirit of Foss.
Popping out popular Foss projects and making them ownership is another dirty trick. It feels like the vultures circling and waiting for the right time to perform their excellent pickings. That is why I am grateful for the Linux Foundation, because whatever happens, they will always represent the true spirit of Foss, and the projects that they promote will continue to bloom.
Free and open collaboration forms a solid basis
Lucas Gouveia/How-To Geek
If you have ever looked around and you have surprised how far people have come, you may have asked how this was possible. You can answer science and engineering at a high level, but at a more fundamental level it was cooperation. At a certain point in our history, our ancestors have merged into groups and since then we have been working together. It took us millions of years to take that concept and to apply it in everything, but in the end we worked on projects that cover the individual mind.
Without cooperation we only have competition and we see how that takes place in the wild. The term “dog-eat-dog” describes that the environment perfectly and is often used in the upper echelons of business society. While the competition is the best in all of us, it is the solid basis of cooperation that the system dedicates, regardless of how you look at it.
Foss is the modern embodiment of that collaboration, and some would say it represents the purest form. The exploitation that I have treated before, corrupts that ideals, but it brings competition and therefore stimulates innovation. Just like Yin and Yang, both have become dependent on each other.
I think it is important to understand the differences between the different open-source models. By understanding the differences, we can better defend what we already have. Although the Linux project remains safe, other projects are declining in terms of openness, and it is never fun to see a large and useful project collapse on grilling companies. More than ever, people have to get involved in Foss, even if they are like real proponents – we need people to wear the flag for free and open software, or we can see our software slide into something much worse.
Although I sing the praise of Foss religiously, it is not all Kumbaya; There are some good and bad aspects about foss that can interest you. There are also different BSDs that are worth trying if you feel like a Linux break.
