A review of Open Source Software and Open Source Movement in Developing Countries

Free software and open source databases have become a serious alternative to commercial databases. This article states common points and differences between the open source and free software movements and briefly describes the most relevant licenses and database projects.

This book presents a dense and intricate journey into the world of hacking with a specific focus on the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movement. Soderberg embeds the FOSS model in a distinctl...

Against the “Networked Information Economy”: Rethinking Decentralization, Community, and Free Software Development Ben Roberts (bio) The free, libre, and open source software (FLOSS) movement is often cited as an example of fundamental changes in production associated with the rise of information networks. Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams see it as an example of wikinomics, a powerful new form of economic production based on sharing and self-organization.1 Yochai Benkler argues that the form of social or peer production evident in FLOSS can compete with or even displace traditional forms of capitalist organization and sees it as a symptom of the “networked information economy,” replacing the “industrial information economy,” which has been in force since the late-nineteenth century.2 The main feature of this networked information economy is the much greater role within it for decentralized individual action.3 This essay contests this broadly liberal take on the significance of the free software movement. It argues that Benkler is typical of an approach that tends to view the Internet as the primary enabler of decentralization (for example, in the form of decentralized software development). Of course, it would be foolish to discount the role that networks have played in the success of FLOSS. But, as I will argue, an examination of its history suggests that its origins can’t be entirely accounted for in purely technological and economic grounds. The proponents of such an approach often resist the claim that their focus on networks is technologically determinist,4 arguing that the network itself is shaped by social and cultural factors. However, this makes the explanatory power of networks rather circular: the existence of networks explains social and cultural behavior at the same time as being explained by it. The explanation of free software in terms of the economic properties of networks is simply too static and asocial; it serves to explain how a particular mode of production can functionally compete with the market without really being able to account for how this change has come about. In particular, as I will show, the marginalization [End Page 385] of the question of labor in theories of peer production disconnects the analysis from wider changes in the nature of economic production. Moreover, the emphasis on the empowerment of individuals ignores the possibility that decentralization consists in radical new forms of sociality and collectivity, something that can perhaps be seen in the communities built around particular free software projects. As I will argue, Gilbert Simondon’s concept of individuation may help inform a better understanding of the emergence of such free software communities. From the perspective of a nonprogrammer, it is easiest to understand the concept of FLOSS by explaining how proprietary software such as Microsoft Windows is distributed. The operating system and applications that users run on their personal computers (PCs) are most often compiled software. The creators of the application have written the code in any one of a number of different human-readable programming languages; this program is known as the source code. The source code is then converted by another program known as a compiler into object or binary code, which is a machine-readable version of the program executed when the application is run on a PC. Binary, or object, code is the form in which software is most often distributed to users, either on installation media such as compact discs (CDs), installed on a computing device before sale or, increasingly, downloaded over the Net. The end user of proprietary software created and distributed in this fashion has no access to the original source code and is therefore unable to alter, change, or fix the software running on their machine: in the words of Bob Young, the former chief executive officer (CEO) of open source software company Red Hat, purchasing proprietary software is like buying a “car with the hood welded shut.”5 In addition to the absence of source code, proprietary software is usually distributed under the terms of a highly restrictive software license. In effect, the applications run by a user remain the property of the software maker and may be used only under the terms of this contract. Typically, the license prevents sharing...

Open source software (OSS) is computer software that has its underlying source code made available under a licence. This can allow developers and users to adapt and improve it (Raymond, 2001). Computer software can be broadly split into two development models: • Proprietary, or closed software, owned by a company or individual. Copies of the binary are made public; the source code is not usually made public. • Open-source software (OSS), where the source code is released with the binary. Users and developers can be licenced to use and modify the code, and to distribute any improvements they make. Both OSS and proprietary approaches allow companies to make a profit. Companies developing proprietary software make money by developing software and then selling licences to use the software. For example, Microsoft receives a payment for every copy of Windows sold with a personal computer. OSS companies make their money by providing services, such as advising clients on the GPL licence. The licencee can either charge a fee for this service or work free of charge. In practice, software companies often develop both types of software. OSS is developed by an ongoing, iterative process where people share the ideas expressed in the source code. The aim is that a large community of developers and users can contribute to the development of the code, check it for errors and bugs, and make the improved version available to others. Project management software is used to allow developers to keep track of the various versions. There are two main types of open-source licences (although there are many variants and subtypes developed by other companies): • Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) Licence: This permits a licencee to “close” a version (by withholding the most recent modifications to the source code) and sell it as a proprietary product; • GNU General Public Licence (GNU, GPL, or GPL): Under this licence, licencees may not “close” versions. The licencee may modify, copy, and redistribute any derivative version, under the same GPL licence. The licencee can either charge a fee for this service or work free of charge. Free software first evolved during the 1970s but in the 1990s forked into two movements, namely free software and open source (Berry, 2004). Richard Stallman, an American software developer who believes that sharing source code and ideas is fundamental to freedom of speech, developed a free version of the widely used Unix operating system. The resulting GNU program was released under a specially created General Public Licence (GNU, GPL). This was designed to ensure that the source code would remain openly available to all. It was not intended to prevent commercial usage or distribution (Stallman, 2002). This approach was christened free software. In this context, free meant that anyone could modify the software. However, the term “free” was often misunderstood to mean no cost. Hence, during the 1990s, Eric Raymond and others proposed that open-source software was coined as a less contentious and more business-friendly term. This has become widely accepted within the software and business communities; however there are still arguments about the most appropriate term to use (Moody, 2002). The OSMs are usually organised into a network of individuals who work collaboratively on the Internet, developing major software projects that sometimes rival commercial software but are always committed to the production of quality alternatives to those produced by commercial companies (Raymond, 2001; Williams, 2002). Groups and individuals develop software to meet their own and others’ needs in a highly decentralised way, likened to a Bazaar (Raymond, 2001). These groups often make substantive value claims to support their projects and foster an ethic of community, collaboration, deliberation, and intellectual freedom. In addition, it is argued by Lessig (1999) that the FLOSS community can offer an inspiration in their commitment to transparency in their products and their ability to open up governmental regulation and control through free/libre and open source code.

Embedded industries have invested a lot in the introduction of software product lines in their software development. In addition, using open source software appears to be a profitable way to obtain good software. This is also applicable for organizations doing product line engineering. On the other hand, because of the diverse use of open source software, product line development is an attractive way of working in open source communities. In fact, the configuration mechanisms used in open source communities may be applicable within software product lines as well. In addition, product line organizations are usually involved in distributed development, which works very efficiently within open source communities. However, at present, there is limited interaction between the open source and product line development communities. Our aim is to explore what the two communities can learn from each other and to develop a better understanding of how the two communities can benefit from each other.

This article argues that the rhetorical discourse found among free, open source software (F/OSS) movements is being expanded beyond the traditional constituency of software hackers to encompass a larger group of non-expert users and other advocacy organizations. In so doing, the initial goals of free software advocates are being dramatically expanded to include broader aims of digital freedom and social justice. Utilizing the concept of social movements from political sociology, this article first outlines the key aims and discourses surrounding the free software movement by discussing the emergence and development of F/OSS efforts such as the GNU/Linux operating system and the GNU Public License (GPL). Second, I provide examples of how the free software discourses have been adopted, altered, and expanded by a number of organized groups over the past decade. These groups, such as the Creative Commons, digital privacy advocates, and global development agencies, have adopted some of the core concepts of free software, while greatly expanding their meaning and purpose to suit their own advocacy aims. Finally, I argue that the adoption of free software discourse among these newer groups is also having a recursive effect upon the free software movement by encouraging free software advocates to conceptualize F/OSS as part of a broader movement of digital rights and social justice. In the conclusion, the prospects for the emergence of a larger technological and cultural freedom movement in the future are assessed.

The tension between open source and proprietary software constitutes one of the defining structural conflicts of the contemporary digital economy — a conflict that is simultaneously technical, economic, political, and philosophical. This article presents a comprehensive comparative and analytical mapping of both paradigms across their technical, economic, organizational, governance, social, and geopolitical dimensions, drawing on peer-reviewed scholarship from information systems research, political economy, organizational theory, science and technology studies, and legal analysis. The analysis traces the historical emergence of proprietary software as a commercial category following IBM's 1969 unbundling decision; the countervailing institutionalization of the free software and open source movements from 1983 onward; and the subsequent decades of competitive and collaborative interaction that have produced the hybrid landscape of the present. Across the technical domains examined — operating systems, databases, programming languages, cloud infrastructure, development tooling, artificial intelligence, and cryptographic security — the article documents a structural asymmetry: open source has achieved categorical dominance at the infrastructure layer of the digital economy, while proprietary models maintain dominance at the interface and service layers where economic and political power is concentrated. Key tensions analyzed include the free rider problem and chronic underinvestment in open source commons; the strategic commoditization logic by which large technology corporations selectively open-source components to erode competitors' proprietary advantages while retaining proprietary control at value-capturing layers; the governance risks of maintainer burnout, corporate capture, and succession failure; the emerging conflicts between regulatory frameworks — including the EU AI Act, the Cyber Resilience Act, and data protection legislation — and the open source ecosystem; and the geopolitical dimensions of digital sovereignty in which the open/proprietary choice has become a matter of national strategic policy. Six paradigmatic case studies — Linux versus Windows Server, Android's open core architecture, HashiCorp's relicensing of Terraform, the Redis and Elasticsearch licensing conflicts with Amazon Web Services, Meta's LLaMA strategy, and Kubernetes' multi-stakeholder governance — are analyzed to ground the theoretical framework in empirically documented outcomes. The article concludes that the productive question is not which model is superior in the abstract, but rather who benefits from each model, under what institutional conditions, and at which layer of the technology stack — a distributional and contextual analysis that reveals the open source versus proprietary debate to be, at its deepest level, a contest over who holds the power to define how the digital world functions.

The Move to the Middle: Convergence of the Open-Source and Proprietary Software Industries

This chapter discusses the nature of free and open source software from the perspective of business models that can be used to operate within this emerging industry. The focus in the chapter is on free and open source software in general rather than on the specific geospatial domain, however this area of activity is used in several places for reference and by example. The chapter also examines the closed and proprietary complements of the free and open source world and contrasts the rationale and behaviours of software developers and users within both market places. While it is not the intention to set one or the other markets up as a straw man, it is clear from the discussion that the free and open source alternatives have a number of advantages in terms of developing high quality outputs that are responsive to end user needs while embodying the principles of innovation and advancing knowledge.

Tools and artifacts produced by open source software (OSS) have been woven into the foundation of the technology industry. To keep this foundation intact, the open source community needs to actively invest in sustainable approaches to bring in new contributors and nurture existing ones. We take a first step at this by collaboratively designing a maintainer dashboard that provides recommendations on how to attract and retain open source contributors. For example, by highlighting project goals (e.g., a social good cause) to attract diverse contributors and mechanisms to acknowledge (e.g., a "rising contributor" badge) existing contributors. Next, we conduct a project-specific evaluation with maintainers to better understand use cases in which this tool will be most helpful at supporting their plans for growth. From analyzing feedback, we find recommendations to be useful at signaling projects as welcoming and providing gentle nudges for maintainers to proactively recognize emerging contributors. However, there are complexities to consider when designing recommendations such as the project current development state (e.g., deadlines, milestones, refactoring) and governance model. Finally, we distill our findings to share what the future of recommendations in open source looks like and how to make these recommendations most meaningful over time. LAY ABSTRACT Open Source Software (OSS) plays an important role in the development and maintenance of software products that are widely deployed in different domains from computer science to astrophysics and cut-ting edge medicines research. Chances are there is an open source project for anyone to contribute to. With the recent deployment of the popular Linux open source project on Mars even the sky is no limit. However, OSS projects largely depend on volunteers and attracting, retaining, and keeping contributors engaged is a severe challenge. In this paper, we present the design and evaluation of a dashboard to support community managers, such as maintainers, to track and acknowledge newcomers' contributions. With the support of tools such as ours, maintainers will be better prepared to attract and retain their emerging community.

Background: The popularity of the open source software development in the last decade, has brought about an increased interest from the industry on how to use open source components, participate in the open source community, build business models around this type of software development, and learn more about open source development methodologies. Aim: The aim of this study is to review research carried out on usage of open source components and development methodologies by the industry, as well as companies’ participation in the open source community. Method: Systematic review through searches in library databases and manual identification of articles from the open source conference. Results: 19 articles were identified. Conclusions: The articles could be divided into four categories: open source as part of component based software engineering, business models with open source in commercial organization, company participation in open source development communities, and usage of open source processes within a company.

Once upon a time, a difference between hardware and the software running on the underlying hardware didn’t exist. The fundamental idea was to improve the computing, ease the manual effort, and create more scalable and economical solutions for wider adaptation. The initial computing devices were meant for special usages. Users of those machines were typically programmers or researchers, possibly belonging to well-funded organizations where it was comparatively easy to maintain the device costs and the additional cost of expensive software. It became challenging when it came to the commercialization of computers where the hardware cost itself was so high that it was tricky to additionally bear the cost for expensive software. Different inventors developed the idea of making computers more affordable for general users. The most well-received idea was to slowly decouple the hardware and software to eventually bring down the entire cost. In this process, many companies started developing their own software solutions and distributing using different philosophies. Within such a chaotic situation arose the free software movement. The open source movement is one such fork from the free software movement, which started in the late 1980s with the vision of non-proprietary software. This movement emphasized the need for having free distribution of source code used in production software. The term free software is used not to define monetary freedom; rather, it focuses on bringing more open-source code visibility from outside the group of specific software development companies and provide the freedom in terms of modification to specify what a user needs rather than forcing the user to settle with what a software development company decides on behalf of the user.

SUMMARY Interest in the open source software model as a means of developing software for the library community has developed considerably in the last few years. Fortunately, much of the software that has been developed for libraries can be used to provide extended library services to distance learning students. This article provides an overview of both the open source software movement and how that movement relates to providing library services. In addition to describing some software packages that related to specific areas of service for distance learning students, the article includes some guidelines for distance learning librarians to consider when making a choice to use open source software packages.

A lot misinformation and mystery surrounds the topic of Open Source software. The conceptual misunderstanding of software is fostered, in some respects, by a lack of understanding within the professional ranks of the computer field. There are many different views of Open Source software today, based upon ones perspective. After about 20 years of evolution, the position of Open Source in our economy still has not coalesced. Few seems to understand whether Open Source is free software for running a computer (i.e., Linux) or just a way to obtain some software products without giving Microsoft ones money. “There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world and that is an idea whose time has come” - Victor Hugo any view Open Source (OS) software as just a free alternative to proprietary software. The term does not mean that there is no cost associated with its procurement, although some vendors do provide free versions. The word “free” usually means the freedom to copy, modify, or distribute the software. One must be very careful when applying this broad, general meaning to Open Source software. There are many different Open Source licenses in use and it is imperative that users acquaint themselves with the legal ramifications of dealing with intellectual property rights. ` Open Source software should be viewed as a viable alternative in many software selection processes. Recently, the news has portrayed the report of India's Kerala state moving to Linux and OpenOffice for its 2,724 high schools. Likewise, OpenOffice is replacing Microsoft Office in many schools districts around the US. With tight school budgets, school superintendents are realizing significant cost savings by using the OpenOffice products for their campuses. Products such as OpenOffice may not be 100% compatible with their current proprietary counterpart, but for many applications, compatibility is not the issue. The price and the software license management of proprietary packages may be overwhelming.

This chapter presents issues that relate to developing countries’ use of open source software (OSS) and the experience of these countries with OSS. Here the terms open source software (OSS), free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) and free software (FS) are used interchangeably. It describes the benefits of FLOSS including its superior quality and stability. Challenges to FLOSS use particularly for developing countries are described. It indicates that despite the greater benefits to developing countries of technology transfer of software development skills and the fostering of information and communication technology (ICT) innovation, the initial cost of acquiring FLOSS has been the key motivation for many developing countries adopting FLOSS solutions. It illustrates this by looking at the experience of a university in a developing country, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus in Trinidad and Tobago. Strategies for developing countries to benefit “fully” from FLOSS are presented including the implementation of formal organized programmes to educate and build awareness of FLOSS. The authors hope that by understanding some of the developing country issues that relate to OSS, solutions can be found. These countries could then fully benefit from OSS use, resulting in an increase in size of the global FLOSS development community that could potentially improve the quality of FLOSS and indeed all software.