Critique for the Open Source Development Model

  Richter Critique for the Open Source Development Model  1

Contents

1  Introduction  2

1.1  Disambiguation  3

1.2  History of Open Source Software  3

2  Strengths of OS  5

2.1  Open Source Definition OSD  5

3  Weaknesses of OS  7

3.1  Problems and Limitations  7

3.2  Conflicts Among Developers  9

3.3  Pseudoproblems  11

3.4  Death of an OS Project  13

4  Legal Questions  14

4.1  Warranty  14

4.2  Announcement of Source Code  14

4.3  Development and Payment  15

4.4  Leasing  15

4.5  Allocation for Download  15

4.6  Patent Right  15

4.7  Licenses  16

5  Examples  17

5.1  Unix  17

5.2  GNU  18

5.3  Linux  18

5.4  Costs Example  19

6  Conclusion  20

Richter — Critique for the Open Source Development Model 2

1 Introduction

You can hardly find another topic moving the software world more than the dispute between Open Source and Commercial Software [End00]. You can simplified describe the following positions.

First Open Source promotes developing software in non-industrial organizations or during a bureaucratic process but through spontaneous cooperation by interested peo- ple who don’t have any business relationships. Second, users are said acquiring soft- ware not only in form of object but to insist on the source code. Third, Software should be preferably given away. And Fourth, Software should be given away without any protection of copyright or license [End00].

Glass, an American observer of the software scene, wrote that he didn’t understand two facts about the open source movement: programmers lovely read anybody’s code and people work for others without getting paid. But there are more understanding prob- lems with this new cult. When you look behind the mascots and easygoing sayings then questions about the main assumptions of this field of activity come up [End00]. A very famous paper named ”Cathedral and the Bazaar” from 1999 described open source development model as a bazaar. The author Eric Steven Raymond wrote: ”I be- lieved that the most important software (operating systems and really large tools like the Emacs programming editor) needed to be built like cathedrals, carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation, with no beta to be released before its time. Linus Torvalds’s style of development release early and often, delegate everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity came as a sur- prise. No quiet, reverent cathedral building here rather, the Linux community seemed to resemble a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches (aptly sym- bolized by the Linux archive sites, who’d take submissions from anyone) out of which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles. The fact that this bazaar style seemed to work, and work well, came as a distinct shock.”

[Ray99] He showed OS as a magic solution [Bez99]:

• Open source is a progressive phenomenon (bright future of mankind) with no problems.

• The best open source projects employ the so-called ”bazaar model”.

• Microsoft should be destroyed.

• All software developers are moving towards the ”gift economy” in a ”post scarcity society”.

• The open source movement consist of ideal cooperative people. Conflicts are few and can be resolved within a community.

Richter — Critique for the Open Source Development Model 3

• Like a primitive society the movement is (successfully) regulated by unwritten norms and taboos.

That sounds so amazing that I wonder why not every software is developed during an open source software process? Later on this paper will show that reality isn’t that simple.

1.1 Disambiguation

Open source wasn’t the whole time the title for what this paper is about. The turn- around from free to open source software took place in the already mentioned paper ”The Cathedral and the bazaar”. In his versions until 1998 Raymond uses the expres- sion ”free software”, after it was replaced by ”open source”. The word free is not only ambiguous (like free beer and free speech) but also a little bit dirty. Free Software was formed by Richard Stallman, the founder of GNU movement. Its devotees still keep this term alive. Officially, Open source became the new name during OSI foundation meeting in February 1998. Reason for this meeting gave Netscape’s decision to lay open the source code of their browser. After this historical step the computer and financial press used the new term ”open source”. Devotees of free software still criticise that ”open sourcers” would only focus on pragmatical aspects, usability, features, reliability and the efficiency of software. They would disregard beliefs like freedom, community and other principles. ”In fact, that’s the genuine difference between these similar terms: free software follows a political philosophy and open source software is a development

model.” [Gra02] Stallman says the following sentences when he categorises software: [hSI05]

”The term open source software is used by some people to mean more or less the same thing as free software. However, their criteria are somewhat less strict; they have accepted some kinds of license restrictions that we have rejected as unacceptable. We prefer the term free software”

1.2 History of Open Source Software

Let’s have a short look on the short history of OSS.

Software was delivered as free adjunct with new computers until middle 60’s. Manu- factures made exclusively money of hardware. Source Codes were freely available for all enthusiastic programmers in the whole world. First 1965 IBM finished delivering source code together with operation systems of computers. At the beginning of the 70’s several programmers assert making much money out of their own developed software. With the aid of license contracts narrowing or even restricting dissemination of software from one user to another they protected their sources of income. Source Codes became the best kept secrets of young businessmen.

Richter — Critique for the Open Source Development Model 4

Almost ten years later Software was developed behind closed doors. In this way manufacturers could retain control of their tools. Non-Disclosure-Agreements bared programmers from free enhancements their products.

Richard Stallman from the MIT and the later founder of Free Software Foundation was so unsatisfied with this evolution that he decided in 1984 to reproduce a free software package named GNU. His aim was the recreation of open co-operation among software developers to benefit for all computer users. Moreover Stallman created GNU General Public License (GPL) protecting the freedom of software.

The word ”free” let the economy become quietly sceptic. That gave Eric S. Ray- mond 1998 reason to propose naming software together with open source code in the future Open-Source-Software. The Open Source Definition says nothing about using open source software among commercial software. [Gra02], [Ber05]

Richter — Critique for the Open Source Development Model 5

2 Strengths of OS

The strengths of OSS result from its primary aims: developing software in non-industrial processes and so on. In the internet you can read what the official homepage www.opensource.org says about basic ideas of open source: ”The basic idea behind open source is very sim- ple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing.” The main advantages of open source are the following [Ber05]:

• Source Code is optionally extendable, improvable and individually adaptable.

• Bugs and security holes can be fastly detected.

• Permanent quality improvement of software.

• Independent development and continuity of software.

• Less expensive than commercial products.

• Usage of open standards guarantees compatibility and portability

2.1 Open Source Definition OSD

Bruce Perens wrote the first version of OSD with the name ”The Debian Free Software Guidelines” and improved it adding messages from a lasting for months email confer- ence. Open source developers should follow the 10 criteria of the Open Source Defini- tion [htt05]

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.