what exactly open source is all about?

[mozammil muzza]

Hi,
I just want to tell here.

what exactly the 'open source' meant by ?


Isn't it means that what ideas, thinking, view you have just share the same with the world not only software or codes, it may be anything that is related to the word ->

knowledge : information

in any form.

Then why not books ?

Knowledge is to Share

[Palash Nandi]

As far as i know, open source in the strict sense will refer to the GPL license, where you create content/knowledge (it has to be something that can be defined, like text or model diagrams..) and then publish it.
Other people can get the knowledge , have the right to modify it but have to publish it again for the benefit or the community. Once you have a large community and some one to manage this process, you can develop
large complicated projects..

You can check this out .. OScar_(open_source_car)

[Singh Harmeet]

the meaning of the open source is to share the knowledge of people and developed the new ideas and create the new technology. with the help of open source community, there are several thing are learn by students and programmer....

[Campbell Ritchie]

The GPL (GNU Public Licence) is one form of open-source licensing.
What open source means is that any user is allowed to inspect the source code; the GPL permits any user or interested person to change the code and distribute a new version. You can try this Wikipedia page, and the GPL link is here. Note the GPL allows somebody who creates software to charge a price for its use.

[mozammil muzza]

Hi All,
I really appreciate your feedback but i also know what is GPL and Open Source.
My question is shouldn't everything related to the human knowledge be shared among we human.

[Jaikiran Pai]

mozammil muzza wrote:
Isn't it means that what ideas, thinking, view you have just share the same with the world not only software or codes, it may be anything that is related to the word ->

knowledge : information

in any form.

Then why not books ?

Although books do provide knowledge, the authors of the book do spend their time and energy to share that knowledge. So it's perfectly reasonable to charge money for the books. Having said that, there are some books which are published and made available for free.

I assume that you are probably working at some company and being paid for it. From one perspective you too are sharing your knowledge by spending time on the projects, but that doesn't mean you should be made to work for free. Ofcourse, it's your choice if you want to contribute for free, but that should ultimately be up to the individual. For example, I do spend time on open source projects. But that's my personal choice.

[Campbell Ritchie]

mozammil muzza wrote: . . . My question is shouldn't everything related to the human knowledge be shared among we human.

Does that include what I say to my wife in bed?
Does that include the army’s plans to attack the enemy?
Does that include how much money I have in the bank?
Does that include the exact design for the next car from Nissan?

I would say, no. It is neither right not necessary for all knowledge to be shared amongst all people.

And to add to what Jaikiran said, I said earlier that the GPL permits people to sell software rather than give it away. If somebody has worked for the software, they are entitled to be paid for it.

[Tim Moores]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:I said earlier that the GPL permits people to sell software rather than give it away. If somebody has worked for the software, they are entitled to be paid for it.

Yes, people can sell GPLed software, but they must distribute the source code as well, and can't prevent the buyer from distributing the software for free. So you can't really make a living by selling GPL software. Offering services around it is another matter.

[Campbell Ritchie]

I should have said, “sell or hire,” shouldn’t I.

[Peter Johnson]

mozammil muzza wrote:My question is shouldn't everything related to the human knowledge be shared among we human.

Yes and no. For no, here is what the framers of the US Constitution thought:

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 wrote:To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Knowledge workers have the right to earn money based on their knowledge and the ideas they come up with based on that knowledge. Thus the framers of the Constitution recognized that creating an idea was not really different from creating, for example, a chair. You would not expect a furniture maker to give away the product of his work for free, so why should a computer programmer be required to give away his code for free?

On the "yes" side of the question, there are many people who willing give away the products of their labor. Witness Source Forge, Google Code, Wikipedia and similar efforts. And yes, even furniture makers give away their furniture for free if the cause is worthy. And note that the Constitution says "for limited Times", thus the framers also understood that to further knowledge, it must eventually become part of the public domain and freely available to everyone, otherwise the knowledge will eventually disappear.

[Jimmy Clark]

First, the term "open-source" is a computer science term. "source" is referring to the source code of a software application. "open" is signifying that the actual source code is available to usage by the public. The source code of Internet Explorer is not open-source for exampe. While Apache Tomcat is "open-source."

The term "open-source" is normally used as an adjective to describe a software application, indicating the above condition. The type of "usage" permitted by the owners varies and is usually explicitly specified in license agreements, e.g. GPL.

Aside, attempting to use a computer science term to describe a different subject is a bit strange. There are copyright and trademark laws which define and govern intellectual property.

[mozammil muzza]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:
Does that include what I say to my wife in bed?
Does that include the army’s plans to attack the enemy?
Does that include how much money I have in the bank?
Does that include the exact design for the next car from Nissan?

I would say, no. It is neither right not necessary for all knowledge to be shared amongst all people.

So sorry for your trifling understanding of my question, but i really meant by those knowledge which are for public interest, knowledge which help them to grow and understand the technology.
let me remind you that :
Open source not at all related to the intimate secret between you and your wife.
And neither army planning comes in open source scope nor your bank balance.
Nissan's car design for their companies sole benefit.

So please share your ideas with little open vision to this.
I am not pushing you to follow, but just asking to share your view.
But such a senior member like you is posting/replying in such a manner is really malign.

[mozammil muzza]

Jaikiran Pai wrote:
Although books do provide knowledge, the authors of the book do spend their time and energy to share that knowledge. So it's perfectly reasonable to charge money for the books. Having said that, there are some books which are published and made available for free.

Very correct jaikiran and i am totally agreed from your view, but people who are putting their effort in software production, design etc also spent time and energy. Person have full rights to sell their product but is they support 'open source' , then also should share this in free.
Please read from wikipedia :The phrase open source describes practices in production and development that promote free redistribution and access to the end product's source materials.
wikipedia

I assume that you are probably working at some company and being paid for it. From one perspective you too are sharing your knowledge by spending time on the projects, but that doesn't mean you should be made to work for free. Ofcourse, it's your choice if you want to contribute for free, but that should ultimately be up to the individual. For example, I do spend time on open source projects. But that's my personal choice.

I am working in software product company as a java developer and also on open source product as well, but my company is not selling their product in free, thats why i am taking money for my effort.
But here i am talking about people who supports open source and fully agreed in sharing their knowledge and efforts.

Thanks

[Joanne Neal]

mozammil muzza wrote:i really meant by those knowledge which are for public interest

Who decides what is in the public interest ? The Javaranch edition of The News Of the World might decide that what Campbell says to his wife in bed is in the public interest. Campbell would probably disagree.

[Campbell Ritchie]

The JavaRanch edition of the “News of the Screws” would have had the whole website shut down last Summer.

[chris webster]

mozammil muzza wrote:My question is shouldn't everything related to the human knowledge be shared among we human.

Well, in an ideal world perhaps, just as we might want material wealth to be shared equally among all people. But sadly the real world doesn't work like that, and most people have to be able to earn a living from their labours, including knowledge workers.

For example, science works by sharing knowledge, but somebody still has to pay for it. So science is generally fairly open, partly because a lot of scientific work is paid for out of public funds (taxes), and partly because there is such a massive benefit in sharing scientific knowledge. But some science is less "open" e.g. drugs companies do not reveal all their secrets, because they want to make money out of their investment in the scientific research. This means they can afford to pay for their own scientists, and also that they will pay (some...) taxes that can eventually be used to subsidise scientific work in the public sector. Of course, drugs companies often exploit their knowledge excessively, which is why in countries like India some people have decided not to recognise drug patents in order to allow free use of certain drugs etc.

So there is a balance to be struck between sharing knowledge, and still being able to earn a living from generating knowledge. In IT, some companies are pretty good about sharing a lot of knowledge, but they still have to make money out of that knowledge. Some of them achieve a balance by restricting access to some knowledge (secret algorithms, or simply by patenting/copyrighting their products), while others make money from services and additional products arising from their knowledge.

Similarly, if I were a super Java guru (if only...) I might be able to come up with an amazing piece of Java software that I could share freely via an open source licence. But I also have to feed my family, so I still have to make money somewhere, which means somebody has to have both the means and a good reason to pay me for something. After all, a lot of open source work is done by people in their spare time, while somebody else pays them for the skills they use in their day jobs. They share some knowledge (or rather the products of their knowledge) but effectively ration access to their skills by expecting to be paid for them. Should they also give away their skills for free? If so, how will they feed themselves? If not, how do you decide which knowledge should be free, and who decides?

Also, most knowledge work requires an enormous infrastructure to survive - universities, transport networks, communications networks, and so on - that also have to be paid for, but very few companies really want to have to pay for this massive hidden subsidy in supplying the knowledge workers they need. So the taxpayer often has to pay for a lot of this infrastructure, which means somebody has to be making enough money somehow in order to pay these taxes.

So my question to you would be, if everybody shared all this knowledge and their skills free of charge, how will they earn a living as knowledge workers in a capitalist society, where the commercial value of something is based on its scarcity? As long as we have this economic system, most of us can only earn a living by having something to sell that somebody else is willing to pay for, because they cannot get it for free.

In a capitalist society, everything is ultimately rationed by the ability to pay, even generosity: "Money implies poverty" (Iain M. Banks).

[chris webster]

mozammil muzza wrote:
Then why not books ?

Check out Green Tea Press, and "open source" content licences such as the Creative Commons licence.

[mozammil muzza]

really appreciate your points Chris,
but there must be one free online copy from where people who can't afford this can read such books and get your ideas, views on the technology.
After all you the people who are here to support this open source concept, so that every one can be benefited.

[Campbell Ritchie]

mozammil muzza wrote: . . . but there must be one free online copy from where people who can't afford this can read such books . . .

I am afraid there isn’t. We do however have a link here on JavaRanch which might help you.

[Tim Moores]

mozammil muzza wrote:but there must be one free online copy

Why? Creating content that's worth disseminating takes time and effort. Some people do it for free, and for some kinds of content, that's probably the only way to put it in front of a large number of eyeballs. But in general? I don't think so. What content are you disseminating for free?

[B. Katz]

mozammil muzza wrote:really appreciate your points Chris,
but there must be one free online copy from where people who can't afford this can read such books and get your ideas, views on the technology.
After all you the people who are here to support this open source concept, so that every one can be benefited.

I am not certain that everything that they have is indexed online, but for being able to obtain at least a photocopy of a given book, we have the Library of Congress to ask for one. (Check the "Duplication Services" section)

HTH.

[Campbell Ritchie]

That is not free content, but is paid for out of your taxes.

[chris webster]

mozammil muzza wrote:but there must be one free online copy

Why?
School and universities are not free: either you pay for them as a student, or the taxpayer pays for them from the money they earn selling their own labours.
Libraries are not free: somebody (taxpayers, universities, rich benefactors etc) pays for the buildings, books, staff, online catalogues etc.
Even open source software is not truly free (sorry Richard Stallman!), because somebody has paid for people to develop the skills they use to create it, and pays them for their day-job so they can feed their families while they do so.
And who will create the next generation's knowledge if nobody can earn a living from their skills and labours?
So why do you think you should have everything all for free? Are you going to take all this free knowledge and hope somebody pays you for your own skills in turn?