The GNU head is the official mascot of the GNU project. courtesy: gnu.org

The debate between the open source community and the traditional non-free software contains many parallels to political debates over capitalism, communism and anything in between.  As we have seen in geo-political issues often times it is difficult and nearly impossible for two philosophies to coexist for any length of time before one swallows the other.

Software as most people know it is a tangible object.  We go to the store, buy a box and inside are a disk and a manual.  What you are actually paying for, in addition to the relatively small cost of printing, is the distribution, shipping, marketing and advertising of the software.  According to open source pioneer and author Bruce Perens, just 10 cents on the dollar goes toward the actual development of the product.

In a capitalist market this model is in alignment with most other products.  When we as consumers buy a car we are paying for more than just the metal and glass.  The consumer is underwriting the cost for marketing, transportation and development.

Conversely, Richard Stallman’s GNU Public License (GPL) is the standard public license used in open source distribution. Unlike standard copyright that heavily restricts the rights of the user, the GPL terms of use allow programmers to release software freely while asserting that the software remains open source.  The GPL also requires all subsequent changes to the code to be documented and also freely distributed.

For example: You are the creator and programmer of software that can turn spoken English into text on a computer screen.  If you wish to release this as open source you may want to retain some protections.  The GPL sets forth terms that protect the programmer from liability as well as restricting others from incorporating the software in a larger closed source package.  This means that other programmers can take your design and source code and, for instance, make a Spanish language version of it.  The requirement is that it must remain open source and carry the GPL.   Additionally the GPL requires that there not be any discrimination against any group who may wish to modify or use the software.

Free Software is not in the public domain and the GPL restricts anyone from taking Free Software and incorporating it directly into a closed source product.   Stallman has called the collective protections under the GPL “copyleft.”

The Free Software Philosophy does not mean that software engineers and programmers must work for free.  Richard Stallman has been quoted numerous times comparing Free Software to “free speech not free beer”.  The GPL specifically addresses the right for anyone to charge a fee for actual delivery of the product (i.e. copy costs) as well as for support of the software and their time to create customized modifications as long as the modifications are also released under the GPL).

This is a drastic change for many corporate business models. Some former traditionally closed source companies, such as Apple Computer and IBM, have recently seen potential in combining the efforts of the open source community with their own in-house efforts.