Open source is the practice of publishing digital resources publicly alongside their source code or source files, enabling use, study, modification, and redistribution. It is historically and commonly associated with open-source software, software released with its source code. The concept has also been applied beyond software to other digital resources made available alongside their source files or design documents, such as open-source hardware, open-source educational resources or open-source fonts.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The right to use, study, modify, and redistribute this type of digital resources is typically granted through a specific legal framework, usually with open licenses. The development of open source resources can be based on open collaboration.[7][8]
The term open source can also refer to publicly available sources of information, notably in intelligence field with open-source intelligence (OSINT). By analogy to such practices of public access and collaboration, the notion is also used more loosely across many domains.
Open-source software offers a range of benefits, but also presents specific risks and challenges.[9] It can provide improved accessibility through lower and shared costs, greater adaptability through customization, transparency with auditable code, better interoperability via open standards, and independence from vendor lock-in, among others. Due to its ubiquity in modern software, open-source software raises major cybersecurity concerns, as well as significant maintenance challenges.
Open-source software has become the backbone of the global digital infrastructure, powering domains such as web servers, cloud computing, supercomputers, mobile devices, artificial intelligence, and Internet of Things. A 2022 estimate suggests that between 80 and 96 percent of the code making up software on the market today, including proprietary software, is of open-source origin.[10] Its adoption has grown steadily across public institutions, the private sector, and academia, driven by motivations of cybersecurity, digital sovereignty, and independence from proprietary software, with significant geopolitical implications. Organizations are increasingly setting up Open Source Program Offices to manage their strategies.
Open-source software has its roots in the culture of source code sharing that dates back to the origins of computing in the 1950s. The term was formalized in 1998 with the founding of the Open Source Initiative, succeeding the free software movement initiated in the 1980s, with the intention of overcoming the ambiguity of the word "free" — meaning both freedom and gratis — to better appeal to the business world.
Major examples include the Linux kernel and the Firefox web browser. MediaWiki, the software powering Wikipedia, is itself an example of open-source software.
The "open source hardware" logo proposed by OSHWA, one of the main defining organizationsThe RepRap Mendel general-purpose 3D printer with the ability to make copies of most of its own structural parts
Open-source hardware (OSH, OSHW) is hardware whose design source files — schematics, CAD files, bill of materials — are made publicly available, allowing anyone to study, modify, make and distribute the hardware.[11][12][13] Both free and open-source software (FOSS) and open-source hardware are created by this open-source culture movement and apply a similar concept to a variety of components. It is sometimes, thus, referred to as free and open-source hardware (FOSH), meaning that the design is easily available ("open") and that it can be used, modified and shared freely ("free").[citation needed] The term usually means that information about the hardware is easily discerned so that others can make it – coupling it closely to the maker movement.[14] Hardware design (i.e. mechanical drawings, schematics, bills of material, PCB layout data, HDL source code[15] and integrated circuit layout data), in addition to the software that drives the hardware, are all released under free/libre terms. The original sharer gains feedback and potentially improvements on the design from the FOSH community. There is now significant evidence that such sharing can drive a high return on investment for the scientific community.[16]
Open-source hardware also helps alleviate the issue of proprietary device drivers for the free and open-source software community, however, it is not a pre-requisite for it, and should not be confused with the concept of open documentation for proprietary hardware, which is already sufficient for writing FLOSS device drivers and complete operating systems.[20][21]
The difference between the two concepts is that OSH includes both the instructions on how to replicate the hardware itself as well as the information on communication protocols that the software (usually in the form of device drivers) must use in order to communicate with the hardware (often called register documentation, or open documentation for hardware[20]), whereas open-source-friendly proprietary hardware would only include the latter without including the former.
The debate over what should count as ‘open-source’ given a range of openness among AI projects has been significant. Some large language models touted as open-sourced that are merely open-weights and do not release training data and code[26][27] have been criticized as "openwashing"[28] systems that are mostly closed.[29]
Popular open-source artificial intelligence project categories include large language models, machine translation tools, and chatbots.[30] Debate over the benefits and risks of open-sourced AI involve a range of factors like security, privacy and technological advancement.[31][32][29][33]
Education
In open education and by extension to open educational resources (OER), the notion of "open source educational resources" has been theorized to specify OER which provide their source files.[5][6] In order to make meaningful edits to these educational resources it is necessary to access their source files, in accordance with the ALMS framework (Access to Editing Tools, Level of Expertise Required, Meaningfully Editable, Self-Sourced).[34][35] It is common for Open Educational Resources such as open textbooks to be available only in a final format such as PDF, limiting the ability of users to modify them despite the rights provided by open licenses.[36]UNESCO's Recommendation on OER explicitly calls for "developing mechanisms to support and incentivize all stakeholders to publish source files and accessible OER using standard open file formats in public repositories."[37]
Open-source films (also known as open-content films and free-content films) are films which are produced and distributed by using free and open-source and open content methodologies. Their source files are freely available and the licenses used meet the demands of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) in terms of freedom.
Open music is music that is shareable and may provide source files — such as lyrics, MIDI files, samples, track-by-track audio files, or Audacity .AUP project files — allowing meaningful modification.[42][43] It is the concept of "open source" computer software applied to music. However, the non-commercial stipulation associated with Open Music is incompatible with the first section of the Open Source Definition[44] as well as the first freedom put forth in The Free Software Definition (freedom 0).[45] Open Music is one of the general responses to the RIAA's and governmental actions against the music industry and its consumers.
"Open music" can be considered a subset of "free music" (referring to freedom). The differences of philosophy between advocates of "open source software" and "free software" have not surfaced in the community of musicians contributing music to the copyleft commons. This may be due to the relatively recent emergence of copyleft music, as well as to the fact that software development generally involves much more collaboration and derivatization than does music production. It is not clear that open collaboration using copyleft licenses provides any significant advantages in music production, as open source advocates commonly argue is the case for software development.
Several websites have surfaced to provide musicians with the platform and tools necessary for online music collaboration. Most of these sites promote one or more of the Creative Commons licenses, allowing derivative works and sharing of the finished songs. Early implementations of these collaboration sites relied on threaded discussion forum software and FTP to provide a means for musicians to initiate and discuss projects, and to share multi-track files. More recent and modern sites provide robust project-management features, automatic encoding and compression, online playback streaming, web-based upload and download options, chat, and project-based discussion forums.
There are plenty of artists that use Creative Commons Licenses. One of the most open licences is "Creative Commons Attribution" License.
The rise of open-source culture in the 20th century resulted from a growing tension between creative practices that involve require access to content that is often copyrighted, and restrictive intellectual property laws and policies governing access to copyrighted content. The two main ways in which intellectual property laws became more restrictive in the 20th century were extensions to the term of copyright (particularly in the United States) and penalties, such as those articulated in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), placed on attempts to circumvent anti-piracy technologies.[49]
Although artistic appropriation is often permitted under fair-use doctrines, the complexity and ambiguity of these doctrines create an atmosphere of uncertainty among cultural practitioners. Also, the protective actions of copyright owners create what some call a "chilling effect" among cultural practitioners.[50]
The idea of an "open-source" culture runs parallel to "Free Culture", but is substantively different. Free culture is a term derived from the free software movement, and in contrast to that vision of culture, proponents of open-source culture (OSC) maintain that some intellectual property law needs to exist to protect cultural producers. Yet they propose a more nuanced position than corporations have traditionally sought. Instead of seeing intellectual property law as an expression of instrumental rules intended to uphold either natural rights or desirable outcomes, an argument for OSC takes into account diverse goods (as in "the Good life"[clarification needed]) and ends.
Sites such as ccMixter offer up free web space for anyone willing to license their work under a Creative Commons license. The resulting cultural product is then available to download free (generally accessible) to anyone with an Internet connection.[51] Older, analog technologies such as the telephone or television have limitations on the kind of interaction users can have.
Through various technologies such as peer-to-peer networks and blogs, cultural producers can take advantage of vast social networks to distribute their products. As opposed to traditional media distribution, redistributing digital media on the Internet can be virtually costless. Technologies such as BitTorrent and Gnutella take advantage of various characteristics of the Internet protocol (TCP/IP) in an attempt to totally decentralize file distribution.
The principle of sharing pre-dates the open-source movement; for example, the free sharing of information has been institutionalized in the scientific enterprise since at least the 19th century. Open-source principles have always been part of the scientific community. The sociologist Robert K. Merton described the four basic elements of the community—universalism (an international perspective), communalism (sharing information), objectivity (removing one's personal views from the scientific inquiry) and organized skepticism (requirements of proof and review) that describe the (idealised) scientific community.
These principles are, in part, complemented by US law's focus on protecting expression and method but not the ideas themselves. There is also a tradition of publishing research results to the scientific community instead of keeping all such knowledge proprietary. One of the recent initiatives in scientific publishing has been open access—the idea that research should be published in such a way that it is free and available to the public. There are currently many open access journals where the information is available free online, however most journals do charge a fee (either to users or libraries for access). The Budapest Open Access Initiative is an international effort with the goal of making all research articles available free on the Internet.
The National Institutes of Health has recently proposed a policy on "Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Information". This policy would provide a free, searchable resource of NIH-funded results to the public and with other international repositories six months after its initial publication. The NIH's move is an important one because there is significant amount of public funding in scientific research. Many of the questions have yet to be answered—the balancing of profit vs. public access, and ensuring that desirable standards and incentives do not diminish with a shift to open access.
Benjamin Franklin was an early contributor eventually donating all his inventions including the Franklin stove, bifocals, and the lightning rod to the public domain. New NGO communities are starting to use open-source technology as a tool. One example is the Open Source Youth Network started in 2007 in Lisboa by ISCA members.[52]Open innovation is also a new emerging concept which advocates putting R&D in a common pool. The Eclipse platform is openly presenting itself as an open innovation network.[53]
Ideologically-related movements
The open-access movement is a movement that is similar in ideology to the open source movement. Members of this movement maintain that academic material should be readily available to provide help with "future research, assist in teaching and aid in academic purposes." The open-access movement aims to eliminate subscription fees and licensing restrictions of academic materials.[54] The free-culture movement is a movement that seeks to achieve a culture that engages in collective freedom via freedom of expression, free public access to knowledge and information, full demonstration of creativity and innovation in various arenas, and promotion of citizen liberties.[55][citation needed]Creative Commons is an organization that "develops, supports, and stewards legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and innovation." It encourages the use of protected properties online for research, education, and creative purposes in pursuit of a universal access. Creative Commons provides an infrastructure through a set of copyright licenses and tools that creates a better balance within the realm of "all rights reserved" properties.[56] The Creative Commons license offers a slightly more lenient alternative to "all rights reserved" copyrights for those who do not wish to exclude the use of their material.[57]
The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) is an international social movement that advocates a transition into a sustainable "resource-based economy" based on collaboration in which monetary incentives are replaced by commons-based ones with everyone having access to everything (from code to products) as in "open source everything".[58][59] While its activism and events are typically focused on media and education, TZM is a major supporter of open source projects worldwide since they allow for uninhibited advancement of science and technology, independent of constraints posed by institutions of patenting and capitalist investment.[60] P2P Foundation is an "international organization focused on studying, researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices in a very broad sense." Its objectives incorporate those of the open source movement, whose principles are integrated in a larger socio-economic model.[61]
The sharing of technical information predates the Internet and the personal computer considerably. For instance, in the early years of automobile development a group of capital monopolists owned the rights to a 2-cycle gasoline-engine patent originally filed by George B. Selden.[62] By controlling this patent, they were able to monopolize the industry and force car manufacturers to adhere to their demands, or risk a lawsuit.
In 1911, independent automaker Henry Ford won a challenge to the Selden patent. The result was that the Selden patent became virtually worthless and a new association (which would eventually become the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association) was formed.[62] The new association instituted a cross-licensing agreement among all US automotive manufacturers: although each company would develop technology and file patents, these patents were shared openly and with no exchange of money among all the firms.[62] By the time the US entered World War II, 92 Ford patents and 515 patents from other companies were being shared among these manufacturers, with no exchange of money, or lawsuits.[62]
Early instances of the free sharing of source code include IBM's source releases of its operating systems and other programs in the 1950s and 1960s, and the SHARE user group that formed to facilitate the exchange of software.[63][64] Beginning in the 1960s, ARPANET researchers used an open "Request for Comments" (RFC) process to encourage feedback in early telecommunication network protocols. This led to the birth of the early Internet in 1969.
The sharing of source code on the Internet began when the Internet was relatively primitive, with software distributed via UUCP, Usenet, IRC, and Gopher. BSD, for example, was first widely distributed by posts to comp.os.linux on the Usenet, which is also where its development was discussed. Linux followed in this model.
Open source as a term
Open source as a term emerged in the late 1990s. It was coined by a group of people in the free software movement who were critical of the political agenda and moral philosophy implied in the term "free software" and sought to reframe the discourse to reflect a more commercially minded position.[65] In addition, the ambiguity of the term "free software" was seen as discouraging business adoption.[66][67] However, the ambiguity of the word "free" exists primarily in English as it can refer to cost. The group included Christine Peterson, Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann and Eric S. Raymond. Peterson suggested "open source" at a meeting[68] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's announcement in January 1998 of a source code release for Navigator.[69]Linus Torvalds gave his support the following day, and Phil Hughes backed the term in Linux Journal. Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in 1985, quickly decided against endorsing the term.[68][70] The FSF's goal was to promote the development and use of free software, which they defined as software that grants users the freedom to run, study, share, and modify the code. This concept is similar to open source but places a greater emphasis on the ethical and political aspects of software freedom. Netscape released its source code under the Netscape Public License and later under the Mozilla Public License.[71]
Raymond was especially active in the effort to popularize the new term. He made the first public call to the free software community to adopt it in February 1998.[72] Shortly after, he founded The Open Source Initiative in collaboration with Bruce Perens.[68]
The term gained further visibility through an event organized in April 1998 by technology publisher O'Reilly Media . Originally titled the "Freeware Summit" and later known as the "Open Source Summit",[73] the event was attended by the leaders of many of the most important free and open-source projects, including Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Eric Allman, Guido van Rossum, Michael Tiemann, Paul Vixie, Jamie Zawinski, and Eric Raymond. At that meeting, alternatives to the term "free software" were discussed. Tiemann argued for "sourceware" as a new term, while Raymond argued for "open source." The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference the same evening.[73]
Area of application of open-source software[74]Survey on the reasons for using Open Source in 200 Swiss organizations[74]
Some economists agree that open-source is an information good[75] or "knowledge good" with original work involving a significant amount of time, money, and effort. The cost of reproducing the work is low enough that additional users may be added at zero or near zero cost–this is referred to as the marginal cost of a product. Copyright creates a monopoly so that the price charged to consumers can be significantly higher than the marginal cost of production. This allows the author to recoup the cost of making the original work. Copyright thus creates access costs for consumers who value the work more than the marginal cost but less than the initial production cost. Access costs also pose problems for authors who wish to create a derivative work—such as a copy of a software program modified to fix a bug or add a feature, or a remix of a song—but are unable or unwilling to pay the copyright holder for the right to do so.
Open source eliminates some of the access costs of consumers and creators of derivative works by reducing the restrictions of copyright. Basic economic theory predicts that lower costs would lead to higher consumption and also more frequent creation of derivative works. Organizations such as Creative Commons host websites where individuals can file for alternative "licenses", or levels of restriction, for their works.[76]
These self-made protections free the general society of the costs of policing copyright infringement.
Others argue that since consumers do not pay for their copies, creators are unable to recoup the initial cost of production and thus have little economic incentive to create in the first place. By this argument, consumers would lose out because some of the goods they would otherwise purchase would not be available. In practice, content producers can choose whether to adopt a proprietary license and charge for copies, or an open license. Some goods which require large amounts of professional research and development, such as the pharmaceutical industry (which depends largely on patents, not copyright for intellectual property protection) are almost exclusively proprietary, although increasingly sophisticated technologies are being developed on open-source principles.[77]
There is evidence that open-source development creates enormous value.[78] For example, in the context of open-source hardware design, digital designs are shared for free and anyone with access to digital manufacturing technologies (e.g. RepRap 3D printers) can replicate the product for the cost of materials.[79] The original sharer may receive feedback and potentially improvements on the original design from the peer production community.
Many open-source projects have a high economic value. According to the Battery Open Source Software Index (BOSS), the ten economically most important open-source projects for 2017 are:[80][81]
The rank given is based on the activity regarding projects in online discussions, on GitHub, on search activity in search engines and on the influence on the labour market.
Alternative arrangements have also been shown to result in good creation outside of the proprietary license model. Examples include:[citation needed]
Wikipedia is an example of a global application of the open-source model.Creation for its own sake – For example, Wikipedia editors add content for recreation. Artists have a drive to create. Both communities benefit from free starting material.
Patron – For example, open-access publishing relies on institutional and government funding of research faculty, who also have a professional incentive to publish for reputation and career advancement. Works of the US government are automatically released into the public domain.[citation needed]
Freemium – Give away a limited version for free and charge for a premium version (potentially using a dual license).
Give away the product and charge something related – charge for support of open-source enterprise software, give away music but charge for concert admission.[citation needed]
For own use – Businesses or individual software developers often create software to solve a problem, bearing the full cost of initial creation. They will then open source the solution, and benefit from the improvements others make for their own needs. Communalizing the maintenance burden distributes the cost across more users; free riders can also benefit without undermining the creation process. Drupal's founder Dries Buytaert has summarized this as the Maker/Taker problem.[82]
The open-source model is a decentralized software development model that encourages open collaboration,[7][8] meaning "any system of innovation or production that relies on goal-oriented yet loosely coordinated participants who interact to create a product (or service) of economic value, which they make available to contributors and noncontributors alike."[7] A main principle of open-source software development is peer production, with products such as source code, blueprints, and documentation freely available to the public. The open-source movement in software began as a response to the limitations of proprietary code. The model is used for projects such as in open-source appropriate technology,[83] and open-source drug discovery.[84][85]
The open-source model for software development inspired the use of the term to refer to other forms of open collaboration, such as in Internet forums,[86]mailing lists[87] and online communities.[88] Open collaboration is also thought to be the operating principle underlining a gamut of diverse ventures, including TEDx and Wikipedia.[89]
Riehle et al. define open collaboration as collaboration based on three principles of egalitarianism, meritocracy, and self-organization.[90] Levine and Prietula define open collaboration as "any system of innovation or production that relies on goal-oriented yet loosely coordinated participants who interact to create a product (or service) of economic value, which they make available to contributors and noncontributors alike."[7] This definition captures multiple instances, all joined by similar principles. For example, all of the elements – goods of economic value, open access to contribute and consume, interaction and exchange, purposeful yet loosely coordinated work – are present in an open-source software project, in Wikipedia, or in a user forum or community. They can also be present in a commercial website that is based on user-generated content. In all of these instances of open collaboration, anyone can contribute and anyone can freely partake in the fruits of sharing, which are produced by interacting participants who are loosely coordinated.
An annual conference dedicated to the research and practice of open collaboration is the International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (OpenSym, formerly WikiSym).[91] As per its website, the group defines open collaboration as "collaboration that is egalitarian (everyone can join, no principled or artificial barriers to participation exist), meritocratic (decisions and status are merit-based rather than imposed) and self-organizing (processes adapt to people rather than people adapt to pre-defined processes)."[92]
Open source promotes universal access via an open-source or free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint.[86][93] Before the phrase open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of other terms. Open source gained hold in part due to the rise of the Internet.[94] The open-source software movement arose to clarify copyright, licensing, domain, and consumer issues.
An open-source license is a type of license for computer software and other products that allows the source code, blueprint or design to be used, modified or shared (with or without modification) under defined terms and conditions.[95][96] This allows end users and commercial companies to review and modify the source code, blueprint or design for their own customization, curiosity or troubleshooting needs. Open-source licensed software is mostly available free of charge, though this does not necessarily have to be the case. Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses. However, open-source licenses may have some restrictions, particularly regarding the expression of respect to the origin of software, such as a requirement to preserve the name of the authors and a copyright statement within the code, or a requirement to redistribute the licensed software only under the same license (as in a copyleft license). One popular set of open-source software licenses are those approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) based on their Open Source Definition (OSD).
↑Morgan, Lorraine; Finnegan, Patrick (2007). "Benefits and Drawbacks of Open Source Software: An Exploratory Study of Secondary Software Firms". Open Source Development, Adoption and Innovation. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-72486-7_33.
↑Pannier, Alice (2022). Software Power: The Economic and Geopolitical Implications of Open Source Software. Études de l'Ifri. ISBN979-10-373-0641-8.
↑, Open Source Hardware Definition. Freedom Defined. 2011.
↑MacCormack, Alan; Rusnak, John; Baldwin, Carliss Y. (2011). "Exploring the Duality between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the Mirroring Hypothesis". SSRN1104745.
↑Liesenfeld, Andreas; Dingemanse, Mark (5 June 2024). "Rethinking open source generative AI: Open washing and the EU AI Act". The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. Association for Computing Machinery. pp.1774–1787. doi:10.1145/3630106.3659005. ISBN979-8-4007-0450-5.
↑Toma, Augustin; Senkaiahliyan, Senthujan; Lawler, Patrick R.; Rubin, Barry; Wang, Bo (December 2023). "Generative AI could revolutionize health care — but not if control is ceded to big tech". Nature. 624 (7990): 36–38. Bibcode:2023Natur.624...36T. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-03803-y. PMID38036861.
1234Flink, James J. (1977). The Car Culture. MIT Press. ISBN978-0-262-56015-3.
↑Fisher, Franklin M.; McKie, James W.; Mancke, Richard B. (1983). IBM and the U.S. Data Processing Industry: An Economic History. Praeger. pp.172–9. ISBN978-0-03-063059-0. IBM unbundled (began charging for) software 23 June 1969.
↑Shea, Tom (23 June 1983). "Free software – Free software is a junkyard of software spare parts". InfoWorld. Retrieved 10 February 2016. "In contrast to commercial software is a large and growing body of free software that exists in the public domain. Public-domain software is written by microcomputer hobbyists (also known as "hackers") many of whom are professional programmers in their work life. [...] Since everybody has access to source code, many routines have not only been used but dramatically improved by other programmers."
↑Granstrand, Ove (1999). The economics and management of intellectual property: towards intellectual capitalism. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar. ISBN978-1-85898-967-9.
↑"About". The International Symposium on Open Collaboration. 15 June 2010.
↑Riehle, Dirk. "Definition of Open Collaboration". The Joint International Symposium on Open Collaboration. Archived from the original on 12 March 2013. Retrieved 26 March 2013. Open collaboration is collaboration that is egalitarian (everyone can join, no principled or artificial barriers to participation exist), meritocratic (decisions and status are merit-based rather than imposed) and self-organizing (processes adapt to people rather than people adapt to pre-defined processes).
↑Gerbe, Aurona; Molefo, Onkgopotse; Van der Merwe, Alta (2010). "Documenting open-source migration processes for re-use". In Kotze, P.; Gerber, A.; van der Merwe, A.; etal. (eds.). Proceedings of the SAICSIT 2010 Conference — Fountains of Computing Research. ACM Press. pp.75–85. CiteSeerX10.1.1.1033.7791. doi:10.1145/1899503.1899512. ISBN978-1-60558-950-3. S2CID11970697.
v. Engelhardt, S. (2008): "Intellectual Property Rights and Ex-Post Transaction Costs: the Case of Open and Closed Source Software", Jena Economic Research Papers 2008-047. (PDF)
European Commission. (2006). Economic impact of open source software on innovation and the competitiveness of the Information and Communication Technologies sector in the EU. Brussels.
