This blog is really hard to start. For the most part, people who know what "open" means are already "in the know" regarding trends and movement within the field itself. Most people who DON'T know what it is really need an "open 101" course before they can get into the spirit and really get their feet wet. I want to address that latter category of people today. So, if that describes you, then keep reading.
Open Source means different things to different people. One thing that open ISN'T, is stealing. This argument is frequently made in the realms of digital music and movies. But, while the ins and outs of copyright law and consumer rights are intimately related to the idea of open source, it is a distinctly different topic and is best left to experts such as Cory Doctorow of BoingBoing fame.
So if it's not stealing, what is it? At its core, Open is about being innovative through collaboration and the sharing of already established ideas. It is directly opposed to the concept of proprietary technology and patented, copy-protected material. The theory goes that if ideas are locked away as "property" behind legally prohibitive barriers such as patents, then these ideas can never be improved upon by qualified individuals whose expertise enables valid comprehension and analysis. To improve proprietary technology, one must work with or for the holder of the patent, or gain their permission to use or "license" their property. And, because ideas are amorphous and quite tricky to nail down, the ensuing legal battles over who thought of what idea when becomes a nightmare for anyone who may believe their idea is useful, marketable, and beneficial to the lives of others. Thus, innovation costs are placed largely upon the R&D departments of the very companies whose purpose was to maximize profits by keeping tech secret and thus "safe."
Okay, so no proprietary technology. What's the alternative? And so, open-source embraces community-oriented development. Generally, an open-source project will have a sponsor or a vendor who stands to make a profit on the project either directly or indirectly. For instance, the Ubuntu distribution of Linux is promoted and hosted by the company Canonical. Google, of search engine, Blogger, and Gmail fame, is primarily responsible for the Android platform for use on smartphones. Each of these companies directs the development of the product it promotes, and may even have a commercial interest in its success (Android is a Google project and directly drives the usage of its AdSense product), but the main source of code and development ideas comes from the community at large, a process known as Crowd Sourcing. By and large, the community is responsible for the strength and success of the project, and because it is the community that stands to benefit from these projects, the motivation is there to create and innovate. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, because there are many hundreds (in the case of these examples, thousands) of minds behind the contributed ideas, the scope of perspectives and needs is much wider, thus yielding a much broader spectrum of finished modules once these ideas have been distilled and combined with the main body of work.
But how can hardware be "open?" Doesn't it require a manufacturer by definition? As always, the answer is not a straight yes or no (maybe because the first part of the question was not a yes/no question!). Yes, a manufacturer is required in order to source the most basic components, tools, etc. And no, most manufacturers do not operate on the principle of open hardware, so most "open" platforms use non-open technology at some level of their development. For instance, in the amplifiers I build, the cabinet, chassis, wiring, transformers, and tube-design are all open. The speakers and capacitor/resistor designs are proprietary to the companies I use because I think they sound better. It's a give-and-take that is really up to a given designer, but in the end, it's about community involvement! What I hope to do, once all the kinks are straightened out, is to offer my designs and my suggestions for free. If you want me to build stuff for you (and I'm damn good at it), then I will, and you will pay me for my time, so I can eat. But I will not charge you for the development of the technology, because I believe the community benefits from an open forum for discussing and improving the process.
And what about my precious ideas? Won't they be vulnerable to patent by someone else? Nope! There's a great new way of thinking about ideas called Public Licensing, which is most commonly found in the form of the GNU General Public License, or GPL. Another alternative is Creative Commons, which doubles as an open-source advocacy organization (you will note I use the Creative Commons license on my own site). Anyway, the upshot of these licenses is that they protect your work from malicious patenting firms basically by providing different, more community-friendly protections to your creations. Most of them allow your work to be copied, incorporated into other work, and reproduced for the sake of reporting IF the destination product is open-source. Some even allow you to market your idea as long as credit is given to you! Hooray! YOU get to choose how your ideas are used!
Upshot: open is good! It aids the community and speeds innovation by asking a larger population of qualified individuals for their input. And just look at some of the stuff open source has created recently!
Open Office
Ubuntu
GIMP Shop
Arduino
No comments:
Post a Comment