[tt] Atlas Sphere: Kushai Sharma: The Individualism of Open Source

[Premise Checker]

Kushai Sharma: The Individualism of Open Source
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/printer_080915-sharma-open-source.php
8.9.15

I am a fan of Ayn Rand's writings, and I deeply admire and follow
Objectivism to the extent of my understanding.

I consider rational selfishness to be a great virtue, and anyone who
understands its value would scoff at anything that has an altruistic
motive.

For this reason, some Ayn Rand fans might disagree with the premise
of the open source software movement. That, however, could be a
mistake.

What exactly is open source? Open source is a movement started by
people who believe that when customers buy software, they should
have the actual source code to the software.

This means anyone capable of making changes to the source code and
customizing the software to suit their needs, can do so without
worrying about whether they're infringing upon copyright or
trademark laws.

It also follows that you are free from mandatory updates and have a
choice about whether to use any updates you receive. Unlike some
commercial products, once you buy or download open source software,
you get the entire software with redistribution rights and not just
the "right to use it for a limited time."

This freedom, coupled with the availability of the source code, is
the backbone of open source. This has made it possible for people to
incorporate a great number of important changes to the software and
make it truly world-class.

This also makes the nature of development in open source
community-based, which is the reason why almost all open source
software is available free of cost.

The open source movement has developed an intricately balanced, yet
surprisingly robust, community for developing software.

However, since open-source software is available free of cost, most
people outside the movement -- and within it -- mistakenly see it as
an altruistic undertaking.

Quite a few of them have even forgotten that it is not intended to
be free as in "free beer" but free as in "freedom of speech."

Either way, most of them fail to realize that there is an
individualism at its core. And it is this spirit, not altruism,
which lies at the heart of the open source movement.

Let us see how.

When I purchase a computer, I do so by paying a lot of money for the
hardware. Then I realize that for all the functionality I need on my
system, I need to spend at least half as much on the software too.
And what's worse, it's not a one-time cost; I have to keep updating
and re-purchasing the license renewal packages for my system to be
up-to-date.

This entire cost could be difficult to maintain for someone like me
who doesn't make commercial use of his computer. So the only way out
of this situation is to use software that is available for free.

However, non-profit enterprises are difficult to maintain; after
all, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Well, there is a way
out.

The solution does not miraculously make a non-profit enterprise
possible but explores other non-monetary areas of profit like
obtaining software free of cost, enabling user contributions, making
money on advertisements, making money on software support, enhancing
skills under the mentoring of senior developers at no cost, etc.

It usually starts with a person or a group of people interested in
developing an application. This group announces the start of the
project and provides all the details of what they wish to
accomplish.

The announcement is also accompanied by an open invitation for
anyone to contribute to it.

As a user, this is my opportunity to play my part in supporting open
source. When I see such a request, I can start by developing my own
code for that application and upload it for the project.

There are other alternate methods of contribution available for
users: documentation, monetary support, answering users' questions
on the forums, etc.

The least anyone could do is try out the new product and give back
an update on whether it works properly, or if there's anything else
you would like to have added to its functionality.

And when I do any/all of these things, I'm not doing it for any
charitable purpose; I'm doing it because I want the software to
remain free for my usage.

This is how open source works on an individualistic principle and
not an altruistic one. Here, every man's effort is ultimately driven
by a sole purpose: making free software possible.

Any undertaking where you get more than you invest is worth looking
at. Open source makes it possible for you to obtain an impressive
range of world-class software while there is no compulsion or limit
to the amount of contribution you have to make.

Even if you are financially sound and in a position to buy all the
software you need, there are many advantages for anyone associated
with open source. These include:
   * The fact that your contribution has been accepted for open
  source means it was worth incorporating in the product. That
  speaks volumes about your coding or other capabilities, which
  adds a lot of weight to your resume
   * In the process of contributing to a project, you come in contact
  with great professionals who mentor you in your undertaking and
  you end up with more knowledge than you ever anticipated
   * Is there anything more satisfying than seeing your name in the
  credits of world-class software?
   * Lastly, you get loads of free software that helps you save an
  enormous amount of money

That was from the perspective of a user. Now let's look at it from
the perspective of a software developer.

In developing software, code is not the only important factor. There
are hundreds of other aspects -- namely, documentation, installation
support, bug reports, testing, add-ons, language translation etc,
each of which requires different specialized skills.

Developing something in-house would mean employing people from each
of the above areas. In short, spending a lot of money.

It would also mean purchasing other commercial software that I have
to use to be able to create my own set of things -- for example, I
would need an Office suite for documentation.

What if I didn't have enough money to support this process? I would
either have to ask for an investment from a third party or obtain a
loan from a bank. This is where open source steps in.

This business model doesn't need a high initial investment capital.
Of course, in return, you might have to provide the software free of
cost. It is not mandatory, though, since open source only says that
you have to give the source code with the software; it doesn't have
a limit on how much you can charge for it.

However, charging for it would drive away contributors, since they
wouldn't get what they were looking for: software that is free of
cost.

Instead, what one could do is to give the product for free and sell
its support. Since you're the one developing it, naturally, you're
the best person to ask for help when one faces a problem with your
software.

This helps you save a lot of investment money, earn money by means
of support services and advertisements on the site -- free software
sites always have great traffic, therefore, their advertisement
revenues are naturally very high -- and the users get their desired
software for free.

Besides, when you give out the source code, it only means that the
application will be enriched by someone else's contribution.

Furthermore, if your software is highly scalable and can be used for
large deployments, you might even be successful in attracting the
support of large corporations who would support your project for a
profit motive of their own: obtaining world class software with a
total understanding of its development and support. Either way,
everyone wins.

The only obligation one man has towards another is to give value for
value. Open source helps you do just that. And here's the best part
-- it's easy on your pocket.

Kushal Sharma is an aspiring writer and web developer. He currently
works as an online marketing professional for a technical publishing
company in India. He is also an editor at The Atlasphere and
maintains a personal blog.