“Open” or “Free”
You might not know it based on some current community commentary, but at its origin the term “Open Source” was intended to be a straight drop-in replacement for “Free Software”. There was no philosophical or conceptual difference; instead there was a linguistic concern (“free” has multiple meanings) and a marketing concern (“free” makes “corporate types nervous”).
To a very large degree, the marketing angle has been a smashing success: “Open Source” is a fantastically popular buzzword, so popular in fact it is applied to home plans, literature, live rock concerts, embroidery, scientific research, mayoral elections, and a wide array of other non-Software happenings with varying degrees of accuracy in the labeling.
There are two problems with this “success”:
- “Open Source” is distorted, stretched and co-opted for (im)pure marketing purposes; and
- “Open Source” is applied with only the vaguest understanding of what it actually means
Language Shapes Thought
Well maybe it does (or maybe it doesn’t), but I can tell you that marketers certainly operate under the assumption it does.
The problem I see with the explosion of popularity for “Open Source” goes back to the first linguistic concern that drove some people to replace “Free Software”. There is a focus on the openess of the source code as the end-goal rather than freedom as the end-goal.
In the latter – and in the case of software – openess of the source code is a necessary but not sufficient condition of freedom. In the former, it is easy to fall into a trap thinking something like “can someone see the source code” is the only thing that matters. In this light “open source” is not much clearer than “free software”.
Language Shapes Language
Once a phrase has established itself as a positive buzzword, it will be thrown around with little concern to the actual meaning. Anyone listening to some drone drone on about “changing paradigms” and “leveraging synergies” knows its meaningless corporate-speak and doesn’t give it much weight.
But I don’t think people have begun to apply that same skepticism to “Open Source” just yet. Perhaps it is the excitement of seeing big companies adopt community projects, or the feeling of validation that comes with victory, but it seems that all a software company has to do is squeeze the word “Open” into a press release someone and they are hailed as BFFs with the “community”.
Isn’t It Ironic
The funny thing to me here is that in an attempt to resolve a linguistic concern – the multiple meanings of “Free” – the term “Open” has taken on a great linguistic ambiguity. As companies reach for the slightest justification to badge themselves “Open”, a term intentionally chosen to deliberately obscure the real goal, it is no wonder they constantly attempt to test just how little they must do to reap the benefits while avoiding the responsibilities of Free Software.
Recent Comments