Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T13:45:23.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2010

Fadi P. Deek
Affiliation:
New Jersey Institute of Technology
James A. M. McHugh
Affiliation:
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Get access

Summary

The open source movement is a worldwide attempt to promote an open style of software development more aligned with the accepted intellectual style of science than the proprietary modes of invention that have been characteristic of modern business. The idea – or vision – is to keep the scientific advances created by software development openly available for everyone to understand and improve upon. Perhaps even more so than in the conventional scientific paradigm, the very process of creation in open source is highly transparent throughout. Its products and processes can be continuously, almost instantaneously scrutinized over the Internet, even retrospectively. Its peer review process is even more open than that of traditional science. But most of all: its discoveries are not kept secret and it lets anyone, anywhere, anytime free to build on its discoveries and creations.

Open source is transparent. The source code itself is viewable and available to study and comprehend. The code can be changed and then redistributed to share the changes and improvements. It can be executed for any purpose without discrimination. Its process of development is largely open, with the evolution of free and open systems typically preserved in repositories accessible via the Internet, including archives of debates on the design and implementation of the systems and the opinions of observers about proposed changes. Open source differs vastly from proprietary code where all these transparencies are generally lacking. Proprietary code is developed largely in private, albeit its requirements are developed with its prospective constituencies.

Type
Chapter
Information
Open Source
Technology and Policy
, pp. 1 - 18
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beesen, J. (2002). What Good is Free Software? In: Government Policy toward Open Source Software, Hahn, R. W. (editor). Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (2004). Open Source vs. Proprietary: Both Have Advantages. ZDNet Australia. http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/comment/0,1000002138,39155570,00.htm. Accessed June 17, 2007.
Conner, D. (1998). Father of DOS Still Having Fun at Microsoft, Microsoft MicroNews, April 10. http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/Micronews/paterson04_10_98.htm. Accessed December 20, 2006.
Cooper, A. (1996). Why I Am Called “the Father of Visual Basic,” Cooper Interaction design. http://www.cooper.com/alan/father_of_vb.html. Accessed December 20, 2006.
Cowan, C. (2003). Software security for open-source systems. IEEE Security and Privacy, 1, 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feller, J. and Fitzgerald, B. (2002). Understanding Open Source Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Pearson Education Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Hahn, R. (2002). Government Policy toward Open Source Software: An Overview. In: Government Policy toward Open Source Software, Hahn, R. W. (editor). Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hoepman, J. H. and Jacobs, B. (2007). Increased Security through Open Source, Communications of the ACM, 50(1), 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillan, A. (2006). Microsoft “Innovation.” http://www.mcmillan.cx/innovation.html. Accessed December 20, 2006.
Microsoft Press Release. (1996). Microsoft Acquires Vermeer Technologies Inc., January 16th. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1996/jan96/vrmeerpr.mspx. Accessed December 20, 2006.
Moglen, E. (1999). Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright. First Monday, 4(8). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_8/moglen/index.html. Accessed January 5, 2007.
Parker, I. (2001). Absolute Powerpoint – Can a Software Package Edit Our Thoughts. New Yorker, May 28. http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/group/powerpt.html. Accessed December 20, 2006.
Raymond, E. (1999). The Revenge of the Hackers. In: Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, Stone, M., Ockman, S., and DiBona, C. (editors). O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA, 207–219.Google Scholar
Raymond, E. S. (1998). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. First Monday, 3(3). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_3/raymond/index.html. Accessed December 3, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reasoning Inc. (2003). How Open Source and Commercial Software Compare: MySQL white paper MySQL 4.0.16. http://www.reasoning.com/downloads.html. Accessed November 29, 2006.
Rosen, L. (2005). Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
Stallman, R. (1999). The Magic Cauldron. http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/. Accessed November 29, 2006.
Stoltz, M. (1999). The Case for Government Promotion of Open Source Software. NetAction White Paper. http://www.netaction.org/opensrc/oss-report.html. Accessed November 29, 2006.
Tong, T. (2004). Free/Open Source Software in Education. United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Information Programme, Malaysia.
Torvalds, L. (1999). The Linux Edge. In: Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, Stone, M., Ockman, S., and DiBona, C. (editors). O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA, 101–112.Google Scholar
Valloppillil, V. (1998). Open Source Software: A (New?) Development Methodology. http://www.opensource.org/halloween/. The Halloween Documents. Accessed November 29, 2006.
Wheeler, D. (2005). Microsoft the Innovator? http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/microsoft.html. Accessed November 29, 2006.
Wheeler, D. (2006). Why Open Source Software/Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html. Accessed November 29, 2006.
Zittrain, J. (2004). Normative Principles for Evaluating Free and Proprietary Software. University of Chicago Law Review, 71(1), 265–287.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×