Open Source versus Traditional Licensing

The open source approach does not necessarily require that the source code be distributed automatically to each user. The vast majority of users are not programmers and will never have need for the source code. The open source approach requires, however, that there be a convenient way to access the source code on request, even if only binary versions are routinely distributed.

Open source software is governed by a family of software licenses that embody a philosophy of software freedom, appropriate attribution, and ensuring that no one has an unfair advantage. No single set of rules applies to all—many different flavors of open source licenses have emerged to accommodate many different business models, legal concerns and philosophical standards.

Open source software, with its inherent requirement for access to source code, comes with the freedom to make changes or derivative versions. If a programmer wants to make changes to an application, it is permissible to do so under any of the open source licenses. The freedom to modify open source software introduces some complexities related to version control.

Ideally, if a programmer discovers an error or makes an improvement in an open source program, those changes can be attributed to the individual or organization that oversees the development of that application and incorporated into future releases and distributions. As more users of the software make more improvements, the application grows in functionality and stability over time. The community of programmers involved in using and improving the software often forms some kind of organization that deals with issues of quality assurance, testing, and version control and might establish a road map for future development.

Another requirement for open source software is the freedom to share. If I have access to an open source software application, I can share it with someone else. If I modify the software, I’m free to share that modified version provided that I meet certain requirements like giving proper attribution to the original version and making available the source code associated with the modified version. Open source software precludes users from passing off someone else’s work as their own. While any user of an open source program is allowed to share derivative versions, there is no requirement to do so.

Open source software is not synonymous with “public domain” software. Copyrights apply to open source software, whereas public domain generally implies no claim to copyright. Given the implied nature of copyrights, saying that software is in the public domain does not ensure the protections given by open source software licenses.

Open source programs adhere to a variety of different licenses. One of the most popular is the GPL General Public License. The GPL Public License, given its adoption by all of the Open Source LMS projects, is of particular interest in the library market.

The GNU General Public License, now in Version 3, requires software to be free to use in any way, share, and modify. It requires that the source code be made available.