“The Evolution of Technology: Open Source Software” is a white paper that discusses the pros and cons of open source software in comparison to closed source software. White paper documents are quickly gaining momentum in the professional world. The amount of customization that is allowed makes them popular in the modern, technologically minded business world. However, many people are discouraged by white papers due to their lack of full copyrights and the less user friendliness of these papers and open source software.

The white paper discussing the evolution of open source generally follows the standard open source style. Most of the document is concisely worded and specific, thus cutting down on total pages. Because the evolution of open source is discussed, it is necessary to include the history of open source and the basics of that software; including the 10 license grants.

Our white paper generally fits the standards established on the OSDDP website. Some improvements could be made to the current document that would help to improve its readability and further mold it to the OSDDP standards. The paper itself is full of headlines, bold text, and page borders. Most of this could be discarded to reduce the “clutter” of the document. The text could also be separated into smaller, better formed paragraphs to break up the monotonous of the reading. There is also some wording included in this white paper that is less informative in nature and more instructional. Some paragraphs seem as if the writer is teaching you rather than informing a public audience. White papers should not be personal in nature.

For the most part the authors used the sources throughout the entire white paper. One of the references was never used though. The title of the author not use was “Open or Closed Source,” which our group thought would have been good to use in the paper. We weren’t sure if they forgot to site it or if it was only used to get an idea of the differences and background of open and closed sources. We still thought they should have included this source in the white paper. Our group looked up each source to determine if they were credible or not. We went to the websites and articles they had as references and each source turned out to be very credible. They were recent articles and went along with the topic they decided on. One of the sources was from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which is a site the class had to go to for one of the assignments this week. Each source was cited accurately with the information they provided.

When we were looking through the sources and going to the websites listed, we found a few more articles the authors could have incorporated into the white paper. We just thought more information could be added to the paper to make it more interesting and stronger. Under the Wikipedia website, we found an article titled “Open vs. Closed Source.” Since the paper talked about the strengths and weaknesses for both of these, we felt this article could have added more since it was a “heated topic” article. There was another article talking specifically about open source so we thought this could be another article they could have cited. Here are the websites for the articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_vs._closed_source, http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/shared_source.php, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source.

Not only did the paper need some new sources, we thought it could use better organization throughout the paper. First, the headings were very basic and not intriguing at all. The paper starts out like a normal white paper, but then towards the middle it starts to look more like an outline instead of a paper. The authors point out the strengths and weaknesses for open source, but it is very choppy because they broke it up into so many different topics and headings.

The style used for this white paper is informative. There is no hint that the writer is trying to persuade the reader that open source is better than closed source; or vice versa. The paper simply gives a summary, historical background of open and closed sources, and informs the reader of the strengths and weaknesses associated with open sources. This style remains consistent throughout the entire writing.

The voice in the paper seems a little choppy. It seemed as though there was more than one writer for this paper, and each writer worked on the piece separately without taking time at the end to make sure everything flowed well. The first couple pages of the paper including the; summary, closed source software section, and the history of open source section, seem to be written in the format that a normal paper would be written. All of the information flows well. In the last pages, under the strengths and weaknesses of open source software heading, the paper seems to flow more as an outline than a regular paper. The writer should have just written the information all together using transitions instead of putting everything under a different subheading. The writers should have decided on a format that was common for the entire paper before splitting it up into sections.

Most of this writing was clearly explained. The one thing that we were not sure of was what closed prototyping was. It says that it is the same thing as a closed source, but it is listed as a positive for an open source. The explanation provided gave us an idea of what it was by stating that it was used initially, but needed to elaborate by telling the reader how a closed source becomes an open source.

Another thing that could add clarity to the writing is including a case study as another source. This could show the reader how open source is being used, and real practice scenarios with companies or individuals using open source. Then the writing could include more ways to improve open source so that a wider variety of people would feel comfortable using it.

The Evolution of Technology: Open Source Software

Matt Bates

Rene Goss

Anna Wahl

Students in professional writing at Purdue University  

Summary:

Closed source software has been used universally among companies and personal computer users since computers were invented. The code this software is run by is strictly property of the company that developed it, which makes modifications to the software almost impossible. An evolutionary shift has taken place because individuals have realized that a restriction on sharing codes impinges on user freedom. Open source was developed to promote the use of free distribution, modification, and collaboration by the community of users. The history and idea of open source software, as compared to closed software, is discussed in order to present the difference between open and closed source. The strengths and weaknesses of open source including prototyping, peer review, authority and responsibility, planning, and costs are overviewed so that the audience can grasp a basic understanding of open source.  

CLOSED SOURCE SOFTWARE

Closed source software is a type of software that is made by a company, and is only able to be controlled, altered, and/or modified, by that particular company. The source code to closed source software is unavailable, and illegal to review or use (infoAnarchy Wiki). Such types of commonly used closed source software are Microsoft Word, Excel, Office, and Power Point.

Close source software has and continues to dominate the software industry since the initial use of software. Closed source software continues to be used by organizations because of the universal understanding of it. Employees of an organization are all able to use the same software and produce work within it that is accessible and understandable by all fellow employees. Closed source is also used by organizations because it is the most common type of software used in households. Organizations reduce the amount of time and money invested in training by using closed source software (Grant). Although closed source software has many benefits and continues to dominate the industry, open source software is becoming highly competitive.

The competition between closed and open source software has evolved due to factors such as price, modifications, and unavailability (Grant). The cost of purchasing closed source software can become expensive to any organization. The high cost of closed source software is a disadvantage because open source software is free. Another disadvantage that appears with closed source software is that any problems that occur within the software can only be modified by the organization that created it (Wikipedia). Being unable to make necessary changes to already existing software will force organizations to purchase new versions of the software at a cost. Lastly, updated versions of closed source software are only available when an organization decides to produce them. This causes problems for organizations or individuals that need to use the problem free software immediately (Wikipedia). Although closed source software continues to dominate the industry, there is a posing threat due to the recent popularity and advantages that open source software possesses.

HISTORY OF OPEN SOURCE  

The idea of open source began early in the life of computers and software. Once people began programming software, they would share the code with each other and expand on it. Eventually when computers became common in the business world, businesses began copyrighting their software.

Going against the business world was a man named Richard Stallman; he supported the idea of open source widely and politically. He designed a set of rights that he believed all users should have. With these rights in place, he developed some open source software such as the GNU Complier and the GNU Emacs. Open source took off when they introduced a Debian GNU/Linux product. Debian, as the programmers called it, was produced by team of programmers headed by a man named Bruce Perens (Kidd).

After Debian's arrival in late 1997, Netscape decided to convert their web browser into open source. They contacted Eric Raymond to consult them in their endeavors. When Raymond had finished his consultation, a new version of the software was established (Kidd).

With this new software, Raymond contacted Bruce Perens for input. Eric Raymond had previous experience with open source software and had even met with Perens on a few occasions. A few months later, Raymond and Perens decided that a revision was needed to be made to the rights of the open source software since the rights had been based on the Debian project (Kidd).

The rights were soon trademarked by Perens. Shortly after, Perens decided to transfer the trademark to Raymond. Soon after the transfer of the trademark took place, open source became very popular (Kidd).

OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

The definition of open source software can be put simply. As stated on the open source website, opensource.org, open source software is defined as a bill of rights for the computer user. Open source must have a software license and this license must grant certain rights to the computer user in order for it to be considered open source. These rights appeal to computer programmers because each of these rights is a step in the right direction for open source advocates.

There are ten rights that the software license must grant:

“Free Redistribution – Free redistribution is the right stating that the license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software.

Source Code – Source Code is the right stating that the program must include source code, and must allow distribution in the source code form as well as a compiled form.

Derived Works – Derived works is the right stating that the license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license.

Integrity of the Author's Source Code – Integrity is the right stating that the license may restrict source code distribution in modified form if and only if the license allows the distribution of “patch files” with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program.

No Discrimination against Persons or Groups – No discrimination against person or groups states that the license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

No Discrimination against Fields of Endeavor – No discrimination against Fields of Endeavor states that the license may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Distribution of License – Distribution of License states that the license attached to the program must apply to all whom the program is redistributed to without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties

License must not be specific to a product – This right states that the rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution

License must not restrict other software – This right prohibits the license to place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software.

License must be technology-neutral – This right restricts any provisions of the license to be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface. ” (Open Source)

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

As with any new development, there has been discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of open source. While many advantages have been shown from the use of open source, there are also limitations that should be presented. This helps to give a more realistic representation of what users would deal with if they choose to participate in using software such as open source.

Closed Prototyping

Strength:

Most open source projects use closed prototyping, which is another term for closed source, in the initial stages of development. In early development, participants need something stable they can run to evaluate and improve on. A closed prototype is constructed initially by an individual or small group because it is easier for a few people to maintain conceptual integrity within the program. By taking this approach, the preliminary design is kept constant. Feedback remains concise and the progress remains visible when closed prototyping is used (Johnson).

Weakness:

If closed prototyping is used in the beginning, then the expertise of the originator is critical for success of the program. A sound initial design is crucial because if there are flaws in the program that occur later on, then it can be hard for developers to compensate for fundamental errors that happened initially. Also, it is important to know the right time for the prototype to be released to the user community. If released too early, the direction of the project may not be apparent. This could cause conflicting opinions on the objective of the project. On the other hand, if the project is released to the community of users too late, the design may not correctly predict the user requirements of a broad community. Overall, it can be a challenge to efficiently manage the prototyping in open-source (Johnson).

Peer Review

Strength:

Peer review is used positively in open-source projects. The more people assessing the program, the more bugs will be found. With a diverse community of users, there is a greater chance of at least one person figuring out how to correct the bug. Also, the reviewers are doing this on their own time and are highly motivated to find and fix problems (Johnson).

Weakness:

Relying almost singularly on peer review may be more labor intensive however. The efficiency of a large-scale peer review is uncertain. One person may eventually find a bug, but undoubtedly many others will have spent time looking for it too (Johnson).

Authority and Responsibility

Strength:

With open source, many small projects can act like one big project. Small teams of specialists work on problems, however, if anyone else has input, they are welcome to express their idea and how it might work. Because people are volunteering their time, usually the most qualified participants lead the projects. In a sense, leadership roles are based out of the needs of the project. The authority and responsibility in open-source can also be thought of like a gatekeeper (Phipps). The “gatekeeper” operates with the implicit consent from the community. They set the margins for the project encompassing the view of the community and create a reference point. Then, changes can be made to the solution layer while at the same time paying attention to the work of the community below. The gatekeeper “is the key to the success of the evolved open-source model, bridging the informality of the community with the stability needs of the commercial enterprise (Phipps).”

Weakness:

Although programmers can work on different projects at the same time, projects can and invariably overlap. Programmers use trial and error, but this sometimes results in redundant code (Johnson).

Planning

Strength:

Planning in open source is informal, which means there are no definite plans. The only long term goal is improvement on the product. Because many of the participants are volunteering their time, the lack of schedule pressure may be motivational. Artificially enforced constraints are freed and developers can take as much time as they need to apply enhancements to the project (Johnson).

Weakness:

While informal planning may help encourage contributors and improve productivity, it also makes forecasting almost impossible. Therefore, the process is less readily visible and progress can be difficult to assess (Johnson).

Costs

Strength:

Open source eliminates the need to pay for software licenses, which reduces costs dramatically. Perhaps more importantly, “commercial support associated with the product is typically comparable or cheaper than other products (Robertson).” The low costs of this type of program makes it appealing for small websites, non-profit organizations, and government departments (Robertson).

Weakness:

It is important to understand that not all open source software is free. “Some licenses allow free use by non-commercial organizations, but charge for corporate use (Robertson).” However, even in situations such as this, open source is often times the cheapest option.

CONCLUSION

Drifting away from the universal standard of closed source software, a new movement has begun which emphasizes software than can be freely redistributed, analyzed, and modified by any software user. Richard Stallman was one of the first to recognize the potential of this idea, and created rights which he thought all users should have. With time, open source became more popular among users. Although there are strengths associated with open source such as the initial design, peer review, authority, planning, and costs, weaknesses exist also. Because of these weaknesses, open source software must improve before dominating the industry as closed source software now does, but the future does look hopeful.

WORKS CITED

Grant, A. (January 2004). Open vs. Closed Source Software . Retrieved September 25, 2004, from

< http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/january/software.htm >.

infoAnarchy Wiki . 1, December 2004. WikiMedia Foundation. 1, December 2, 2004.

< http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Closed_Source >.

Johnson, K. (June 2001). A Descriptive Process Model for Open Source Software Development. Retrieved November 11, 2004, from < http://sern.ucalgary.ca/students/theses/KimJohnson/toc.htm >

Kidd, Eric. (August 2000). A History of Open Source . Retrieved September 22, 2004 from, < http://static.userland.com/userLandDiscussArchive/msg019844.html >.

Open Source . 2004. Open Source Initiative. September 22, 2004. < http://opensource.org >.

Phipps, S. (Spring 2002). Free Speech and Free Beer: The Evolution of Open Source in a Massively Connected World. Retrieved September 20, 2004, from < http://www.webmink.net >.

Robertson, J. (February 2004). Open source content management systems. Retrieved December 1, 2004 from < http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_opensource/ >.

Schwarz, Greg. (2002). Open or Closed Source . Retrieved September 25, 2004 from

< http://www.pirella.com/information/open-closed-source.html >.

Wikipedia , The Free Encyclopedia. 1, December 2004. WikiMedia Foundation. 1, December

2004. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_source >.

Thank you for taking the time to revise our white paper. We feel that you offered great suggestions that will help us improve the content of our paper.

One question we had regarded the order of our paper. We saw that you think it would be beneficial to switch the order of open source and closed source software. We thought it would be better to give a broad view of closed source since we are comparing the two. What are your suggestions?

Thank you again for your help.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Rene, Anna, and Matt

Just a suggestion, but you might want to research a little more about open standards vs closed standards, and open source vs closed source. They are not synonymous. Closed source software can use open standards. And vice versa.

To: "Open Standards vs. Closed Standards" Group
From: Olu, Liana, Sean
Date: 10/19/04

We are going to undertake the task of reviewing your white paper, and we hope to try and help you improve it.

Thanks.

This might be one place to research. The W3C is responsible for HTML, CSS, and other open standards.