Free, libre and open source software

  • The source code of proprietary software may typically not be modified or redistributed without express consent.
  • However, Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) is software whose source code may be modified and redistributed. Anyone is allowed to view, modify, and contribute to the development.
    • “Libre” is a term often used in the open-source community to emphasize the freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute software. This is in contrast to “gratis,” which simply means “free of charge.”

It can be useful to distinguish between four levels of free software:

  • FREEDOM 0: freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.

  • FREEDOM 1: freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

  • FREEDOM 2: freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.

  • FREEDOM 3: freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.

  • There are many kinds and standards of open software licenses.

    • GNU General Public License (GPL): One of the most widely used open-source licenses, the GPL requires that any derivative work also be licensed under the GPL. It originated with Richard Stallman, one of the father os FLOSS, and it forbids any modification of the code to be directly used in a proprietary product. Advocates of this stance often reject the term “open source,” which dates to early 1998, and use Stallman’s original “free software,” because copyleft licenses are to protect the freedom of the developer and all future users to do whatever they want with the software.
    • MIT License: A very permissive license that allows for almost unrestricted use of the software, including commercial use, as long as the original copyright notice and disclaimer are included in all copies or substantial portions of the software.
    • Apache License,
    • BSD License,
    • Mozilla Public License,
    • Creative Commons License, etc.

The social aspect: FLOSS enables community

What is good: - Principles of collaboration, transparency, and community-driven development. It creates a community of practice, of people doing something beautiful together. - Terms commonly used: peer production, mass collaboration, wikinomics, open innovation, crowdsourcing, collaborative consumption.

“Becoming charitable contributors to such communities is one of the most powerful places Christians can be witnesses in the digital age; because of the distributed nature of OSS development, they can rise to positions of real influence and respect, and cause others to do likewise.” - Karl Dieter Crisman, Open Source Software and Christian Thought

Problems and challenges: - Community vices: OSS communities can be exclusive or even hostile to those new to it, to members with a different licensing philosophy, or to those who transgress unwritten norms. Some projects can at least be perceived as uniting against the common foe of a particular computer company. - Also, it can foster unhealthy competitiveness and struggle for recognition in the community.

The economic aspect: FLOSS enables stewardship

What is good: - It is free! And then it can help the underpriviledged by giving access to something. - Thus, it can be an attitude of self-giving and stewardship. - Some people notice that “software is an “antirival” good. Not only does the value of software not diminish if more people use it, including freeloaders (as opposed to the “tragedy of the commons”), but its value may also increase with additional users—for example, when they contribute bug reports or other suggestions.”

Problems and challenges: - It can precarize and invisibilize work that should be rewarded (Ivan Illich’s “shadow work”). - It may become a drug, creating dependency in other areas.

The juridical aspect: FLOSS enables freedom

What is good: - It can subvert authorities and offer different approaches to computer software solutions.

Problems and challenges: - It is often put under a libertarian ideal of free thought and free speech that could culminate in social anarchy.

The aesthetic aspect: FLOSS enables play and creativity

What is good: - Freedom from economic restraints permits an aesthetic and playful approach to developing something. We are not doing just for money or recognition, but for the sake of doing something nice (“internal good”, in contrast to an “external good”).

Problems and challenges: - At the same time, it can become irrelevant, too extravagant and not really attentive to what is most needed.

  • What are other points you think might be important to be called attention?
  • How can we, as Christians, help and propose better dynamics for software development? How can we affirm, critique and enrich this discussion?