What Is “Open Source” Software?
Posted August 1, 2008 by Mister Knowitall

K. in Pasco writes: I keep hearing about open source software. Is it better than regular software? How is it different?

There are basically two types of software: open source and closed source (with some grey areas in between).

With open source, when you buy or are given the software, you also get the source code or instructions on how to download the source code. This allows you to read the underlying programming instructions of the computer program(s) in the package and make changes if you want/need to. The Linux and Free BSD operating systems are open source.

With closed source, you are given pre-compiled software or source code that is encrypted and can only be processed by a special interpreter. You cannot read or change the program instructions. The Windows operating system is closed source. And while elements of the anti-trust suits against Microsoft have required them to show their source code to more people, those people are not allowed to make changes.

A common mistake about open source software is that it’s all governed by the GPL or GNU Public License. This is a license that requires you to share the changes you made to the source if you redistribute the software, meaning you can’t get GPL licensed software, make a few changes, and then sell a compiled version as closed source.

The GPL is just one of the many licensing options available to open source software creators. Some of the more well-known alternatives include the BSD license (created by the folks behind the BSD version of Unix), the Apache license (created by the folks behind the Apache web server), and a raft of licenses offered by the Creative Commons project.

But the most common misconception is that if an open source author/project chooses one of these licenses, it’s the only licensing option available. Not true. In many cases, it’s the only licensing option available if you want the software for free. Many projects provide other licensing options for a fee.

Whether open source is better than closed source is a very tricky and emotionally charged subject. With some people, you’ll get a reaction like you just asked if Jesus is better than Mohammed.

Those who love open source will advance arguments that their software is less buggy than closed source because anyone who wants to can fix bugs. This assumes that there are enough people who want to do it, have the skill to do it, and have the spare time to do it. On big projects that attract a lot of programmers, like the Apache web server, that may be the case. But on smaller projects, there are fewer bug hunters and bug fixers to go around.

Another open source advocate’s argument is that when someone sees a need for a new feature, they can go create it. Once again, this assumes they have the knowledge, skill, and time to do that. If not, the best they can do is submit that feature to a developer mailing list for the project or a wishlist on the project’s web site… much like submitting feedback to the manfacturer of a closed source solution. After that, they’re dependent on the kindness of strangers.

More importantly, no particular philosophy can substitute for talent, skill, and dedication. Both the open and closed source camps have their share of buggy software with terrible user interfaces that make people wonder how anyone though this software was ready for public release. They also both have software that makes you wonder how you lived without it.

So, the answer to whether open source is better than closed source… on a karmic level, it probably is. It’s a more positive vibe. But on a practical level, it depends on the software and how it meets your needs. Many people use open source software every day, but never download or look at the source code. Except for the fact it was free, there’s not a lot of difference in how it plugs into their day-to-day lives vs. how a closed source solution does.

In general, most people are finding that a mix of open and closed source programs does the job.