History In the early days of
computing, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s, programmers and developers commonly shared software to learn from one another and advance the field. Early systems such as
Unix even provided users with access to their
source code, allowing collaboration and modification. However, with the rise of the
commercial software industry in the 1970s and 1980s, this culture of open sharing began to decline as proprietary models became dominant. Despite this shift, academic and research institutions continued to promote collaborative software development practices. In response, the open-source movement was born out of the work of skilled programmer enthusiasts, widely referred to as
hackers or
hacker culture. One of these enthusiasts,
Richard Stallman, was a driving force behind the
free software movement, which would later allow for the
open-source movement. In 1984, he resigned from MIT to create a free operating system,
GNU, after the programmer culture in his lab was stifled by
proprietary software preventing source code from being shared and improved upon. GNU was UNIX compatible, meaning that the programmer enthusiasts would still be familiar with how it worked. However, it quickly became apparent that there was some confusion with the label Stallman had chosen of
free software, which he described as free as in free speech, not free beer, referring to the meaning of free as freedom rather than price. He later expanded this concept of freedom to the four essential freedoms. Through GNU, open-source norms of incorporating others' source code, community bug fixes and suggestions of code for new features appeared. In 1985, Stallman founded the
Free Software Foundation (FSF) to promote changes in software and to help write GNU. In order to prevent his work from being used in proprietary software, Stallman created the concept of
copyleft, which allowed the use of his work by anyone, but under specific terms. To do this, he created the
GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) in 1989, which was updated in 1991. The operating system is now usually referred to as
Linux. As free software developed, the
Free Software Foundation began to look how to bring free software ideas and perceived benefits to the
commercial software industry. It was concluded that FSF's
social activism was not appealing to companies and they needed a way to rebrand the
free software movement to emphasize the business potential of sharing and collaborating on software source code. The OSI definition differed from the
free software definition in that it allows the inclusion of proprietary software and allows more liberties in its licensing. Some, such as Stallman, agree more with the original concept of free software as a result because it takes a strong moral stance against proprietary software, though there is much overlap between the two movements in terms of the operation of the software.
Future The future of the open source software community, and the free software community by extension, has become successful if not confused about what it stands for. For example,
Android and
Ubuntu are examples milestones of success in the open source software rise to prominence from the sidelines of technological innovation as it existed in the early 2000s. However, some in the community consider them failures in their representation of OSS due to issues such as the downplaying of the OSS center of Android by Google and its partners, the use of an
Apache license that allowed forking and resulted in a loss of opportunities for collaboration within Android, the prioritization of convenience over freedom in Ubuntu, and features within Ubuntu that track users for marketing purposes. The use of OSS has become more common in business with 78% of companies reporting that they run all or part of their operations on FOSS. The popularity of OSS has risen to the point that
Microsoft, a once detractor of OSS, has included its use in their systems. However, this success has raised concerns that will determine the future of OSS as the community must answer questions such as what OSS is, what should it be, and what should be done to protect it, if it even needs protecting. All in all, while the free and open source revolution has slowed to a perceived equilibrium in the market place, that does not mean it is over as many theoretical discussions must take place to determine its future. == Comparisons with other software licensing/development models ==