 |
The Case for Open Source: Hackers' Version(Note: if you're a non-techie reading this, you may have some negative and wrong ideas about what the term `hacker' means. Do your homework and come back.)The Technical Case - a No-BrainerInternet and Unix hackers, as a rule, already understand the technical case for open source quite well. It's a central part of our engineering tradition, part of our working method almost by instinct. It's how we made the Internet work.This case has been formalized in The Cathedral and the Bazaar. This paper was behind Netscape's pioneering decision to take its client software open-source. But, to us, the paper wasn't necessary to make the case. We all know how astonishingly reliable the running gears of the Internet are relative to their nearest commercial equivalents. TCP/IP, DNS, sendmail, Perl, Apache...replacing these with closed software would barely be even conceivable, let alone feasible. Developers from other traditions should start with the paper, continue with Homesteading the Noosphere, continue further with The Magic Cauldron, read the business case, and proceed to the Frequently Asked Questions list. The Economic Case - Why You Won't StarveA lot of hackers who already know that open-source is better than closed are reluctant to push the idea because they're afraid they might lose their paying jobs. Fortunately, there are excellent reasons to believe that this fear is groundless. Read them here.The Marketing Case - New Territory for TechiesThe case that needs to be made to most techies isn't about the concept of open source, but the name. Why not call it, as we traditionally have, free software?One direct reason is that the term ``free software'' is horribly ambiguous in ways that lead to conflict. You can read an extended discussion of this problem. But the real reason for the re-labeling is a marketing one. We're trying to pitch our concept to the corporate world now. We have a winning product, but our positioning, in the past, has been awful. The term ``free software'' has a load of fatal baggage; to a businessperson, it's too redolent of fanaticism and flakiness and strident anti-commercialism. Mainstream corporate CEOs and CTOs will never buy ``free software'', manifestos and clenched fists and all. But if we take the very same tradition, the same people, and the same free-software licenses and change the label to ``open source'' - that, they'll buy. Some hackers find this hard to believe, but that's because they're techies who think in concrete, substantial terms and don't understand how important image is when you're selling something. In marketing appearance is reality. The appearance that we're willing to climb down off the barricades and work with the corporate world counts for as much as the reality of our behavior, our convictions, and our software. You can read some practical marketing advice written for hackers, and an excellent article on how to write press releases. |
.
