Open source is information and knowledge freely available to others for use, modification and improvement. As long as once it has been modified and improved it is for personal use or if made available to others the original author has been credited and the information is available for free.
The ideology of open source is to achieve widespread knowledge, and allowing knowledge and work to be changed and interrupted for improvement, therefore carrying on the spread of knowledge. It is pointed out that “The “open source” way of doing things is all the rage. Companies as powerful and established as IBM boast of using Linux operating systems in its servers. Publications as conservative as The Economist has pronounced open-source methods “successful” and have pondered their applicability to areas of research and development as different from software as pharmaceutical research.” (Vaidhyanathan, 2013:24) which shows that the concept of open source is obviously beneficial and helpful otherwise companies such as IBM and the magazine publication company The Economist wouldn’t not only be using them but making it public that they use them and boast of their benefits.
Vaidhyanathan makes valid points about open source and is very critical of propriety information, which is knowledge and information not freely accessible due to the author charging for their work/s and this also means that no improvements can be made or modifications as it will breach copyright, he argues “The “open source” way is closer to how human creativity has always worked. Open source used to be the default way of doing things. The rapid adoption of proprietary information has been so intense and influential since the 1980s that we hardly remember another way or another time. However, through most of human history all information technologies and almost all technologies were “open source.” And we have done pretty well as a species with tools and habits unencumbered by high restrictions on sharing, copying, customizing and improving.” (Vaidhyanathan 2013:24) “Richard Stallman took a stand against the proprietary model long before the rest of us even realized its power and trajectory. […] Stallman found he was not allowed to improve the softwares and devices that he had to work with, even when they did not work very well. More important, Stallman grew alarmed that he was becoming contractually bound to be unkind and selfish.” (Vaidhyanathan 2013: 26).
Vaidhyanathan uses negative words such as unkind, selfish and trajectory whereas describes open source as human nature, whilst I understand Vaidhyanathan’s reasoning of preferring open source, I do believe his argument is slightly too harsh for the fact is that whilst propriety doesn’t allow for creativity and makes people unfairly pay for knowledge which should be free, at the same time it is the authors piece of work, art even, and its unfair on them that they should have to give away their hard work because others like Stallman can’t find the work beneficial to his own. I feel that society runs on propriety information, as it fit’s the ideology of capitalism, there needs to be something for society to buy, and something to sell, if there was just open source information and work then the current society in it capitalistic structure would cease to exist, collapsing from the lack of buying and selling.
Bibliography
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2013) ‘Open Source as Culture/Culture as Open Source’, in Michael Mandiberg (ed.), The Social Media Reader, New York, New York UP, pp. 24-31
Patrick Clark 