Return to Alan Trzuskoski's Web
The Motivation of the Open Source Movement
Psychology Senior Thesis
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Professor: Ralph G. Noble
March 2003
Written by: Alan Trzuskoski
“There has been a revolution taking place in the world of information and technology ever since the Internet first became a reality. Curious, intelligent and generous people across the planet have banded together in groups both large and small to share ideas over the Internet. Their goal: to create software that is available for free like the air we breathe.” (http://www.freephile.com/library/editorial.php)
In this paper I explain what open source software is, as well as the implications of switching to it. I describe the advantages, as well as the disadvantages of using it in comparison to the standard propriety software model. I also explain the change in software licenses and the new economic models that are required to make the open source movement a reality. By discussing all of the facets of the open source movement I hope to uncover the motivation behind the major players in the open source movement.
There are several reasons I decided to research the motivation behind the open source movement. First off, I am an idealist, and I believe that once you buy something you should own it. In the conventional software model the user does not own the software; they simply own a license that allows them to use the software on one computer. If the user ever encountered a “bug” or glitch in the program they would be powerless to fix it; no matter how minor. In fact the user might be expected to purchase newer versions of the same software just to fix their minor glitch. In the case of open source software a user could find the error in the source code and fix it themselves for no cost. Furthermore they could share their fix with other users that experienced the same problem. That is the basis of Richard Stallman’s belief that software should be free. By allowing information to be completely free humanity can constantly learn and improve itself.
Once a consumer is using an operating system it is very time consuming and difficult to change to another operating system. Unfortunately, that alone locks them into purchasing new upgrades of that software. That is the primarily why Microsoft Windows has been so prosperous. Finally, every computer user should know that there are many options available for their pc. Say no to conformity!
The word ``free'' has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When open source proponents speak of ``free software'', they are talking about freedom, not price. (Think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer''.) Specifically, it means that a user has unrestricted access to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes. Although free software is always open source the reciprocal is not always true. One major example of open source software that is not free is a piece of networking software called free BSD. Free BSD worked so well that Microsoft used and modified its source code in their operating system. Free BSD can not be considered truly free software because in the end Microsoft locked away its changes to the free BSD source code in its black box of an operating system. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)
The basic concept is that although the information is free, money can still be derived from services involved with it. If a user is not computer literate they can always pay a computer technician to install, upgrade, or edit any free software. Perhaps this means that free software is only monetarily free to the elite few skilled in using and manipulating computers. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)
Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a monetary cost. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. For example, if a user wanted to install the Linux operating system they could download it from the internet at no cost to them. However, if a user were to buy a computer workstation pre-packaged with the same software they would probably have to pay a license fee to the author of that specific software. If a user wanted to install the software themselves, but not spend the time downloading it they could purchase a disk with the software recorded on it. Because users have the freedom to do whatever they choose with the software we call the program free; regardless of the price. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)
Non-free software is usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a user can get a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free software, though. Price or no price, the program is non-free because users don't have freedom. A prime example of this phenomonon is Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. Any user can download the software for free off their website or purchase one with a box and software manual from a computer store. In another example software is often bundled with a piece of hardware. That same software can often be found full price from the same retail establishment. However, we still can not consider this software. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)
There are many advantages to free-software.
The availability of the source code and the right to modify it is very important. It enables the unlimited tuning and improvement of a software product. It also makes it possible to port the code to new hardware, to adapt it to changing conditions, and to reach a detailed understanding of how the system works. Currently Linux is the only operating system that can operate on any computer hardware. Many experts have reached the conclusion that to really extend the lifetime of an application; it must be available in source form. In fact, no binary-only application more than 10 years old now survives in unmodified form, while several open source software systems from the 1980s are still in widespread use. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Advantages_open_source_soft.html)
Because of certain licenses used by open source software, anyone has the right to redistribute modifications and improvements to any piece of code. That infinite workforce continually modifying the software allows for constant improvement. Constant improvement generally leads to a higher quality of software. Proprietary software is created by a finite group of programmers that work until a project budget runs dry. Once the budget for a particular project is out of money then the software is considered done. This difference explains why many more users can benefit from the modifiability of software. Open source software licenses differ from ``nearly free'' ones in substance because redistribution rights cannot be revoked and they are universal. That has been the major attraction to a substantial crowd of developers who work around open source software projects. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Advantages_open_source_soft.html)
The right to use the software in any way combined with redistribution rights, can help to ensure (if the software is useful enough) a large population of users. That in turn can help to build up a market for support and customization of the software; which can only attract more developers to work on the project. The more developers working on a project in turn helps to improve the quality of the product, and its functionality. A high quality product that any user can try for free will probably attract many users, which in turn, will help the software spread by word of mouth. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Advantages_open_source_soft.html)
Another advantage to open source is that there is no single entity on which the future of the software product depends. On the other hand, if a proprietary software vendor decided not to upgrade a piece of software for an old platform or the software manufacturer went out of business, or just simply decided to stop development on that software product, the user would be out of luck. With proprietary software, no one other than the owner has the right to continue development on it. However, if open source software was used in the first place, the customer could fund development for the original platform, look for other vendors to provide upgrades (for the same product), or fund another software group to continue the maintenance and improvement, without legal or practical limitations. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Advantages_open_source_soft.html)
Another great thing about open source is that anyone can use the current code base to start new projects. That way a working knowledge can be gathered at a minimal cost. That was a major impetus that made Internet software systems such an important factor in the “new economy”. Students and people trying new technologies could integrate and adopt new algorithms and code immediately, without the hurdles of commercial or non-disclosure license agreements. In addition, the right to freely modify the code helped expand the number of communication protocols and systems, each perfectly tailored to the needs of their users. That was also a reason for the overwhelming success of the Linux kernel. Many students used Linux because of it’s near-zero cost. Subsequently the same students used Linux in the startups they originated, when they left the university and became entrepreneurs. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Advantages_open_source_soft.html)
One last major advantage is that the open source movement provides a new forum for democratic action. As individuals and companies decide where to make improvements in a system, the collective desires of the community determine the overall direction of progress, without compelling anyone. If a user has an opinion about what direction is best, they can urge others to agree, request help, and influence the overall direction of progress; without any elections in which the majority overrule the minority. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Advantages_open_source_soft.html)
One major disadvantage of the open source movement is that there is no guarantee that development will take place. It is not possible to know if a project will ever reach a usable stage, and even if it does, it may die later because of lack of interest. Of course, this is also a problem with proprietary software, but it is more evident in the case of open source. To be successful a project must have a strong backing from one or more companies. While the source base is still immature and the development base is still being built, a project must get funding and or enough programmers cooperating to keep the project afloat. Usually, when it reaches a self-sustaining level, the user and development base is large enough that it can proceed by itself, without other external incentives. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Perceived_disadvantages_ope.html)
Open source software is not for everyone. To set up, install and run open-source software requires at least a general working knowledge of how computers and operating systems run. For the general consumer, proprietary software is still the front runner, at least for a few more years. However, many major companies have begun switching to Linux. Companies like Unilever PLC, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, and Winnebago Industries Inc. have all switched their employees to Linux and open source software like MYSQL, and open office. Other companies like IBM corp., Oracle corp., Hewlett-Packard co., and Ximian inc. have been packaging Linux and open source software with their hardware to lower the total cost of ownership. (“Out of the Shadows”)
Another disadvantage is the difficulty in knowing what projects exist, and their current status. There is very little advertising for open source software, especially for projects not directly backed by a company willing to invest resources in marketing campaigns. There are also many cases of software specific to some field of study, such as scientific software or database systems. Because specific software is so difficult to find there is a real opportunity for companies with experience in Internet based information services to find people or companies trying to locate or evaluate open source software of some given characteristics. In fact, a new business is emerging for providing consulting and searching services related to the selection and tailoring of open source applications to specific needs. Unfortunately, the general public is not often educated or informed enough to utilize these services and get the open source software solution they need. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Perceived_disadvantages_ope.html)
There are a few advantages to proprietary software. One advantage is proprietary software comes with a guarantee that the code compiles and operates properly right out of the box; however, that is not fool proof. If the user has problems running the software its distributor may blame the operating system or hardware failures. At that point the user does not have to worry because the software creator often offers over the phone service. Very rarely is that no charge, but none the less it is available. The biggest advantage for proprietary software is it is usually designed with the low end user in mind.
Open source models produce substantial economic impacts and consequences for the software industry as well as society in general. There are several new economic models for open source projects and it is important to discuss them since they are at the heart of the new movement’s viability. These new economic models differ greatly from traditional models of the software industry which are heavily based on proprietary software where the income is directly related to the per-copy price. There are, of course, some exceptions, but in general these traditional models are not viable with open source software, since income is not derived from selling copies of the software. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Economics_open_source.html)
A few words from Richard Stallman follow:
For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough incentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)
For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)
The first economic model is externally funded ventures. In this category are groups or companies that develop open source software through the financial initiative of some external organization. For the most part, those external backers determine how the funds are appropriated, and where the development efforts are headed. Basically the external organization sponsors the development of a particular piece of open source software. Within this category, there are at least three different models based on who funds the project and why. They can be described as public funding, `needed improvement' funding, and indirect funding. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/New_economic_models_Externa.html)
Usually, with public funding the only constraint imposed by the funding entity is that the project must be completed with the funds already appropriated. Funding for this type of project usually comes from universities or from national science grants. This type of funding is typical of large computer science projects, as well as large projects in radio astronomy, computational chemistry, and biology. In addition, some consortiums for the development of Internet tools and technologies are likely to receive such a funding structure. It is important to notice that in the case of public funding, the institution providing the financial backing is not expecting to recover the investment, or to directly benefit from it. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Public_funding.html)
With ‘needed improvement’ funding, a company or organization may need a new or improved version of a software package. Therefore they are willing to fund some consultant or software manufacturer to do the work. Later on, the resulting software can be redistributed as open source to take advantage of the large pool of skilled developers who can debug and further improve it. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/_Needed_improvement_funding.html)
This was the case when the Corel Corporation wanted to improve the Wine Windows emulator. They commissioned Macadamian Software to port its entire software suite to several additional platforms. Because it was open source, Macadamian Software was able to port the software with a simple recompilation process. That was significantly cheaper than accomplishing a complete porting process, as well as cheaper than building a proprietary Windows emulator, since Wine was already partially built. The work (still in progress) significantly improved the quality of the emulator, and the improvements made by Macadamian were integrated directly into the Wine code base. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/_Needed_improvement_funding.html)
The final new economic model is indirect funding. This occurs when a company decides to fund an open source software project because that project can create a significant revenue source for related products, not directly connected with source code or software. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Indirect_funding.html)
One example of this funding model can be seen in the actions of O’Reilly and Associates, a publisher who specializes in technical books. They paid some of the most important Perl programmers as a way to ensure continued development of the language. That in turn allowed for more sales of Perl-related books (which they publish). (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Indirect_funding.html)
The existence of free (open source) software has a complex and important impact on the economy as a whole. When information technology becomes more accessible and more trusted it enables the creation of new markets. Because of the existence of a population of users that also produce software and information, new activities and branches can easily be created. This is illustrated by the numerous examples of music, digital photography, and personal home pages. New products, new services, and new branches of activity can develop on this basis. In specific fields, such as education, the reduction in total cost of ownership that is enabled by use of open source software can increase the creative abilities of all players in the field as well as lead to an increased efficiency of the public services. Unfortunately, because of the lack of adequate detailed statistical data, the comparison of macro-economic effects on free and open source usage and its detailed links with economical and non-economical activities is not possible today. Any study of the impact of open source on the economy will need proper macro-economic indicators to be developed. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/big_macro_economic_picture.html)
A common discussion, even within the open source community, is whether open source software models are more or less productive than proprietary models. From most points of view, proprietary software can only be profitable if no other competing open source software product exists with similar characteristics. In addition the open source software model seems to ensure that once it enters a niche with enough energy, it can produce a product capable of competing with any proprietary counterpart. The cases of Gnat and Apache are clear in this respect. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_renewe.html)
If this opinion is true, open source software models which serve a significant need should all become self-sustaining. As time goes by, if everything works out properly, enough resources should be collected by open source projects to maintain a steady level of development. This becomes easier as resources are not reduced to money, but just intangible resources like developers' time, or beta testers. For those reasons a company producing a new product should consider going open source if there is already a dominant producer in its niche. If not, it would be much more difficult to achieve great results, because competing with the proprietary rules is hard, especially in established markets. By going open source, the underdog can change the whole competitive environment, and rules. The dominant producer no longer has all the advantage for several reasons. Many customers will be motivated enough by lower costs, more control of the development path, as well as many of their own personal reasons to give the open source product a try. That will then force the dominant producer to change its strategy, improving on the quality of the product and service, switching to an open source model or offering any improvement that represents value to the buyer of the software product. Currently, this seems to be affecting even big players, like any UNIX vendor which tries to compete with GNU/Linux, or any web server vendor that tries to compete with Apache. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_renewe.html)
Copyright is the most usual method of protection for software products. In fact, open source licenses are also enforceable because they utilize copyright law. Copyright law, by default, does not allow for redistribution or the use of software on more than one computer. The only way that redistribution can be done is by granting specific permission in a license. The aforementioned license can force redistributors to fulfill certain conditions. That is how open source licenses work. Different conditions, ranging from attribution of authorship (as the BSD license does), to a requirement that any redistributed or derived work are open source. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_copyright_law.html)
“With the current legal framework, the license under which a program is distributed defines exactly the rights which its users have over it. For instance, in most proprietary programs, the license withdraws the rights of copying, modification, lending, renting, use in several machines, etc. In fact, licenses usually specify that the proprietor of the program is the company which publishes it, and sells restricted rights to use it.” (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_licenc.html)
“In the world of open source software, the license under which a program is distributed is also of paramount importance. Usually, the conditions specified in licenses of open source software are the result of a compromise between several goals, which are in some sense contradictory.” (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_licenc.html)
Authors can guarantee some basic freedoms such as redistribution, modification, and use to customers. Licenses can also ensure some conditions such that any redistributors maintain the same license, and hence, recipient's rights are the same, whether the software is received directly from the author, or from any intermediary party. Other licenses provide “protection of moral rights. In many countries, legislation protects some moral rights, like acknowledgement of authorship. Some licenses also provide protection for these matters, making them immune to changes in local legislation.” (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_licenc.html)
“Still other licenses provide protection of some proprietary rights. In some cases, the ``first author'' (the party that originally made the piece of software) have some additional rights, which in some sense are a kind of ``proprietary'' rights.” (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_licenc.html)
“Some licenses are designed so that they are completely incompatible with proprietary software. For instance, it can be forbidden to redistribute any software which is a result of a mix of software covered by the license with any kind of proprietary software.” (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_licenc.html)
“Some open source licenses are not compatible with each other, because the conditions of one cannot be fulfilled if the conditions imposed by the other are satisfied. In this case, it is usually impossible to mix software covered by those licenses in the same piece of software.” (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_licenc.html)
There are three common open source licenses currently used. One is the Berkeley Software Distribution license (BSD). Another is the Gnu General Public License (GPL), and the third is the Mozilla Public License.
The BSD license is a good example of a ``permissive'' license. It imposes almost no conditions on what a user can do with the software, including charging clients for binary distributions, and no obligation to include source code. In summary, redistributors can do almost anything with the software, including using it for proprietary products. The authors only want their work to be recognized. It is important to notice that this kind of license does not include any restriction oriented towards guaranteeing that derived works remain open source. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_licenc.html)
The GPL was carefully designed to promote the production of more free software. Because of that, it explicitly forbids some actions on the software which could lead to the integration of GPL software in proprietary programs. The GPL is based on the international legislation on copyright, which ensures its enforceability. The main characteristics of the GPL are the following: it allows binary redistribution, but only if the source code availability is also guaranteed; it allows source redistribution; it allows modification without restriction; and complete integration with other software is possible. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_licenc.html)
The GPL is one of the strongest links in Richard Stallman’s chain. The GPL ensures its own longevity by requiring that all derivative works also carry the GPL license if and when it is published. The free software foundation refers to this protection as a "copyleft" instead of a copyright. The Free Software Foundation’s definition of copyleft follows: (http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/)
"To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program’s code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable." (http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/)
The third, Mozilla Public License, was made by Netscape to distribute the code of Mozilla, the new version of it internet navigator. It is in many respects similar to the GPL, but perhaps more ``enterprise oriented''. (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_licenc.html)
There are many possible reasons that software developers might spend so much time writing programs just to give them away. Some believe their motivations lie in altruism, charity and ego. Free Software developers have needed help themselves at one point or another, and found it in the Free Software community. More often than not they are eager to return the favor to the movement that helped them, not just the individual. Free Software developers are often humble people that derive a great deal of satisfaction from the accolades of a worldwide community constantly working together for the advancement of technology. It is both awesome and inspiring that a single individual has the power to make a contribution that might be used worldwide. (http://www.freephile.com/library/editorial.php)
Another reason software developers might support the open source movement is because they recognize that there are probably billions of people on the planet without access to high-priced commercial software and computers. By lowering the total cost of ownership software developers are responsible for leveling the technology playing field, and advancing society’s overall technological knowledge. (http://www.freephile.com/library/editorial.php)
The previous reasons are very feasible; however I believe that many key players responsible for the open source movement share Richard Stallman’s ideals. Richard Stallman is the creator of GNU Linux (the first open source operating system) and the grandfather of the Free Software foundation and the current open source movement. He has put a great deal of thought and work into getting the open source movement rolling. What follows is an excerpt from the Free Software Foundation’s web page that states his beliefs why software should be free:
“What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.”
“Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.”
“And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that helping our neighbors in a natural way is ``piracy'', they pollute our society's civic spirit.”
“This is why we say that free software of is a matter of freedom, not price.” (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)
Although some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it, that is not everyone’s motivation. Development is much easier when reduced to the coders’ and beta-testers’ time. If the open source movement is to continue, it will certainly require more funding. Funding is important to the open source movement for several reasons. One major reason is the cost of hardware that programmers require to code, compile, and use. Another is the cost of marketing. Marketing is required to spread knowledge of a completed piece of open source software. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)
As part of my conclusion I would like to reiterate three things to remember about open source and free software. First, they are not the same thing. Open source implies a development methodology that is shared by both open source and free software. Second, the division between the two is often bitterly contested, both from inside and outside the communities. The holiest of holy wars are not fought over word processors, operating systems, or compilers. They are all about software licenses. Third, live and let license. Those who write the code get to pick the license. If you don’t like it, tough; always suspect the motive of anyone spending time and energy attacking a license used by someone else. They may not own up to having an agenda, but clearly they do. (http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/)
I believe there is a great deal of psychological research that could be done to study the open source movement. More research into the motivation of computer programmers is the most important. That research would probably take the form of a questionnaire. If psychologists could narrow down what exactly takes the place of the monetary reward structure, then maybe that could be used to help influence new programmers to offer their service and expertise for free. Another field of study that might be easier for psychologists to research deals with the computer users themselves. Psychologists could question proprietary software users to determine major reasons supporting their decision to continue to use proprietary software. It might also be interesting to create a description of the open source movement and then question proprietary software users if they would switch if such a thing existed. Maybe there is little support due to the naiveté of most computer users. Finally, psychologists could study users that have already converted to the open source movement. That might be useful in determining why they converted.
“Works cited”
Barr, J. (2001, May 23). Live and let License. LinuxWorld.com, Retrieved December 8,
2002 from http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/
Bulkeley, William. “Out of the Shadows: Open-source software is not only becoming
acceptable. It’s also becoming a big business.” The Wall Street Journal 31 March
2003, R6.
Campbell, A. (2001). Rebel Code - Glyn Moody. Retrieved December 8, 2002 from
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/anthony.campbell1/bookreviews/r/moody.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). The Big (macro economic) picture. Libre Software,
Retrieved December 8, 2002 http://eu.conecta.it/paper/big_macro_economic_picture.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). Cooperation and competition. Libre Software, Retrieved
December 8, 2002 from http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Cooperation_competition.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). The cathedral and the bazaar. Libre Software, Retrieved
December 8, 2002 from http://eu.conecta.it/paper/cathedral_bazaar.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). Development models. Libre Software, Retrieved
December 8, 2002 from http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Development_models.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). Case Study of a non open source license: SCSL. Libre
Software, Retrieved December 8, 2002 from
http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Case_study_non_open.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). Economics of open source. Libre Software, Retrieved
December 8, 2002 from http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Economics_open_source.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). Indirect funding. Libre Software, Retrieved December 8,
2002 from http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Indirect_funding.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). ‘Needed improvement’ funding. Libre Software, Retrieved
December 8, 2002 from http://eu.conecta.it/paper/_Needed_improvement_funding.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). New economic Models: Externally funded ventures. Libre Software,
Retrieved December 8, 2002 from
http://eu.conecta.it/paper/New_economic_models_Externa.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). New economic Models: Unfunded ventures. Libre Software,
Retrieved December 8, 2002 from
http://eu.conecta.it/paper/New_economic_models_Unfunde.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). Open source and copyright law. Libre Software, Retrieved
December 8, 2002 http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_copyright_law.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). Open source software and renewed competition in the
software market. Libre Software, Retrieved December 8, 2002
http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_renewe.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). Open source software licences. Libre Software, Retrieved
December 8, 2002 from http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_licenc.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). Open source and software patents. Libre Software,
Retrieved December 8, 2002 http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_software_patent.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). Perceived Disadvantages of open source models. Libre Software,
Retrieved December 8, 2002 http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Perceived_disadvantages_ope.html
Gonzalez, J. (2000, April 24). Public Funding. Libre Software, Retrieved December 8, 2002 from
http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Public_funding.html
Stallman, R. (2002, November 26). The free software definition. GNU Project, Retrieved
December 8, 2002 from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Stallman, R. (2002, December 5). Free Software is More Reliable. GNU Project,
Retrieved December 8, 2002 from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-
freedom.html
Stallman, R. (2002, June 10). GNU Project. GNU Project, Retrieved December 8, 2002
from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
Stallman, R. (2002, December 5). Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”.
GNU Project,Retrieved December 8, 2002 from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-
software-for-freedom.html
Stallman, R. (2002, December 5). Why Software should not have owners. GNU Project,
Retrieved December 8, 2002 from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
(n.d.). Free software for all. Retrieved December 8, 2002 from
http://www.freephile.com/library/editorial.php
Return to Alan Trzuskoski's Web |