What should we think about when we select software for a given purpose? The truth is that software procurement can be fraught with danger, potentially very expensive danger. It is unfortunate that we cannot have people walk in front of us waving red flags for our safety. There are no maps with "here be dragons!" So, IT procurers, while you are contemplating cost and fitness-for-purpose etc., here is one less thing to worry about: Open Source.

People often think about Open Source in all the wrong ways. Many people, when they think of Open Source, think:

"Open Source is a development model"

Software is software, no matter how it gets from the developers' grey matter to your machine. The development practices behind Open Source software products are just as varied as they are behind their proprietary counterparts. With roughly 110,000 Open Source projects on Source Forge (not to mention the countless numbers not hosted there) it is inevitable that development practices are widespread.

"Open Source is a licensing scheme"

All Open Source software comes with a license. Yes, it is the license that protects its Open Sourceness (for want of a better phrase). Proprietary software is licensed too, you know!

"Open Source is unsupported"

Much Open Source software is unsupported. Some is only supported informally through loosely coupled (mostly online) communities. Often support can be purchased for Open Source software. In fact this is one of the more common business models around Open Source.

"Open Source is incompatible with..."

As the old adage tells us, it takes two to tango. The path to interoperability is paved with standards. Open Source software is frequently quick off the mark with these. For example, OpenOffice was well ahead of its proprietary counterparts when it came to Open Document format or ISO26300 as it is known in the world of standards.

The simple truth of the matter is that Open Source is all of these things. But, then again, so is proprietary software. In an attempt to create a more concrete differentiation between Open Source and proprietary many will tell you:

"Open Source is software development communism!"

Well comrades, come the revolution.... In all seriousness, many people genuinely believe this. It is needless to say that they are wrong, but even if they were right, who's to say it's a bad thing?

Open Source and Free Software are fundamentally the same thing. Certainly similar enough for the sake of this article. With this in mind, the Free Software foundation's definition of "Free Software" (as opposed to the Open Source Initiative's definition of "Open Source") is used as this article continues; it's shorter.

"Free as in freedom, not as in beer"

What makes Open Source different from proprietary software development can be described in one word: freedom. Of course it was the ambiguous nature of the word "free" that has blighted Free Software since its birth. "Free as in freedom, not as in beer" as Richard Stallman famously clarified. Nevertheless, freedom is at the heart of Open Source and, in fact, it comes four-fold.

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
On face value this may seem like a simple gesture. It is. However, it an extremely powerful gesture and one which is crucial to the Open Source movement. There are no "conditions" within Open Source licensing. Compare this with the license for proprietary software next time you install some.

Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
Understandably it can be frustrating when a piece of software comes very close to meeting your needs, but not quite getting there. This situation occurs frequently when a general application is put to specific use with a vertical domain. There are no guarantees that a proprietary software vendor will ever make the changes you require, although you are more than welcome to ask. However, with an Open Source solution you are able to edit the source code and make the application do what you require. Government officials take note: this allows the UK taxpayer's hard-earned pound stay in the country.

Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour.
Often, when you've found a piece of software that is particularly useful, you may want to recommend it to a friend or colleague. Why not but a copy to CD and give it to them too? Well, under traditional licensing schemes you would be breaking the law. You would be branded a pirate and be made to walk the plank if you were found out. However, if you want to copy a distribute some Open Source code, you are more than welcome to do so.

Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition to this.
This is a nice one. Open Source gives you the right to help others with your modifications to the software. Once you have made changes to your software, you are more than welcome to pass on the benefits. Or not. The best example of this come from the various Linux distributions. Many of them adapt the Linux kernel for their own purposes, such as performance enhancement. Often these distribution-specific changes make it back into the main kernel software itself. Sometimes they don't.

So is freedom "free", like "free beer"? The rather unhelpful answer is, it can be. This article is being written on a machine where all the software has been downloaded over a broadband connection for the cost of the electricity and 48 minutes of Internet subscription. However, it is possible to buy Linux distributions. In these situations it is not the software being purchased. The price covers the cost of packaging and, most importantly, formal support (normally favourably priced against the proprietary counterpart). This is only one of many ways in which the big Open Source players make their money.

A viable business model

Contrary to many people's beliefs, Open Source can be a key component to a thriving business model. If this were not the case, many people in the industry would not be able to pay their bills. The truth is that Open Source can make you money if it's part of your business model to gain income through software services. Here is a classic example...

Imagine you work for a major corporation in a vertical domain: medical systems. Due to competition from various competitors, your machinery (MRI scanners, X-ray machines etc.) are becoming commodotised. These days, what differentiates you from your competitor is the software that runs on your machine and not the equipment itself. Most importantly the user interaction software. By incorporating Open Source into these systems you will be saving valuable resources on system development and freeing these up to concentrate on adapting these systems to develop the parts of the system which add value to your product.

Conclusion

With a bit of luck, in the future people will not care whether a piece of software is Open Source or not. Open Source and proprietary software development share many similarities. It is, of course, the differences that count. Open Source software development exists primarily as a benefit to the end-user. IT procurers of the world, next time you are on the prowl for new software, make life just that little bit easier on yourself and stop worrying about Open Source. And may your beer always be free.

by Paul Adams, Research Manager and Chair of BCS Open Source Group