Open-source….Man, how this term has been buzzing in people’s ears since Linux, Mozilla, and quite a few other phenoms first entered onto the computer scene within the last decade or more.
Basically, the term itself says it all: the allowance for developer wannabes who, mind you, have the skill, tact, and resources to have their way with the development of a particular computer feature, be it a simple application, script, plugin, extension, or maybe an *entire* operating system. Or, if the guy or gal is *that* ambitious, he/she can use the source code (which has been posted for all the world to gaze upon in awe) as the basis for the creation of a whole ‘nother feature of his/her own (or, even better, his/her fellow developers).
It doesn’t rely that much on money, and it doesn’t usually use money as a linchpin for further development. In fact, with the further decrease (and, in many circles, decrying) of the importance of proprietary rights, money will sooner or later be thankfully phased out as an issue in the ongoing evolution of the computer industry.
OK, so enough about the computer industry. That diddy only serves as the preceding example or basis for an expansion of the topic at hand: “Open-source”.
Now, a while ago, there was this now-defunct company in Toronto called “Opencola” which created collaborative software, including a desktop application which, according to the article of the same name from Wikipedia, “which enabled users to search, acquire, manage and share information from multiple data sources, including the Internet, peers on the Opencola network, and existing proprietary databases, from a single interface.”
However, before the company and its desktop thingy was sold to Waterloo’s own Open Text Corp. in the summer of 2003, the company was able to achieve notoriety, not for its desktop application (which, I guess, didn’t get the company that much money by way of propriety), but rather for a soft drink which had served, originally, as a promo tool for the explanation of open source software. The company’s idea caught on, and, before folding, was able to sell some 150,000 cans of the caffeinated concoction.
Supposedly inspired by this, an Italian “spinoff” of sorts, with no commercial value, was started up by a few FLOSS ethics activists. This version is clear (like Sprite or Fresca), by the way.
Furthermore, the rather-rudimentary recipe for Vores Øl (“Our Beer”) was published under the Creative Commons license by students at IT-University in Copenhagen, in association with Superflex, a Copenhagen-based art collective, in order to, as put by Wikipedia, “illustrate how open source concepts might be applied outside the digital world.” Initially derided by many online brewing afficionados because of the lack of numerous necessary details within the recipe, the idea soon caught on, since one of the leading developers, Rasmus Nielsen, admitted that the creators behind the recipe were (by any means) lacking the experience and knowhow in the development of a *perfect* recipe (thus asking for help from others who may possess such resources); furthermore, Nielsen stated that the brew was meant as a statement against “dogmatic notions of copyright and intellectual property that are dominating our culture.”
——————————————
So, open-source beverages, you say? OK, so now the open-source revolution can be extended outside of the realm of IT?
So now, we can have open-source this, open-source that, open-source etc…
Now…what about open-source *government*?
You read that right. Open-source government.
That means: open-source executive, open-source legislative, open-source judiciary, open-source bureaucracy, open-source electoral process, open-source defense and public order, and so on.
Now, I bet that you’re wondering, “How can there be such a thing as an open-source government, of all things?”
Well, let’s first talk about government in the basic.
————————————————-
Everybody loves democracy, whether it be the term itself, its definition, or its implementation. However, all three features of this term are shrouded in the utmost controversy of debate, since, like most other things in life, it comes in a spectrum of shades and colors rather than in simple black and white.
The interpretations of democracy, as a principle and ideology, vary wildly from extreme to extreme. You have the anarchist definition, the communist interpretation, the bureaucratic approach, the militarist stance, the free trade/speech construing, and, of course, the fascist dismissal (“bunch of hogwash”).
However, as the etymology of the term derives from the Greek for “people’s rule”, I guess that the concentration of our query should center even further upon “rule”, and what that actually consists of.
Now, the “rule” is most often taken as being “law”, the “as is”, the “standard”, the “endgame”, the “final and ultimate say-so on most matters”. So, if this thing called “law” or “rule” is in the hands of the people, the public, the common for its molding, shaping, and total use, then how is it that, in a supposedly-democratic nation, the same common hands its possession of the rule to a few select men?
Think about that.
Now, let’s look, once again, at the concept behind open source, as I quote from the “Open Source Definition”, as explicitly stated from OpenSource.org:
“Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
4. Integrity of The Author’s Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of “patch files” with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program’s being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program’s license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.”
(Copyright © 2005 by the Open Source Initiative, opensource.org)
Furthermore, let us also take notice, via Wikipedia, of how the Participants in the development of Open Source software are basically constituted:
“Participants in OSS development projects fall broadly into two categories. There are the Core and the Peripheral.
The Core or Inner Circle are developers who modify codes that constitute the project.
The Peripheral are usually made up of users who use the software. They report bugs, and suggest fixes.
The participants may then be further divided into the following.
1. Project leaders who have the overall responsibility (Core). Most of them might have been involved in coding the first release of the software. They control the overall direction of individual projects.
2. Volunteer developers (Core / Periphery) who do actual coding for the project. These include:
* Senior members with broader overall authority
* Peripheral developers producing and submitting code fixes
* Occasional contributors
* Maintainers who maintain different aspects of the project
3. Everyday users who perform testing, identify bugs, deliver bug reports, etc. (Periphery)
4. Posters (Periphery) who participate frequently in newsgroups and discussions, but do not do any coding.”
Now, in those definitions of the essence of Open Source, I believe that we now have laid our eyes upon a link between open source and democracy that could forever revolutionize the way that government is operated.
[With that being said, I’ll stop at this point in order to let you think about it. In the meantime, I’ll begin work on the world’s first open-source constitution and human rights charter (the counterpart to “source code”), which I’ll eventually post on a website for distribution.]
