Open Source Versus Proprietary Software - Coursework Example

Open Source versus Proprietary Software Open Source versus Proprietary Software Introduction Computer software may be applied in either open source or proprietary form. Although they are both marketed for direct monetary and non-direct monetary gains, they bear more differences than similarities. Proprietary software refers to licensed computer software with exclusive copyright and legal implications whereby the user only has special-condition rights of usage. This means that the user is also restricted from aspects such as reverse engineering, redistribution, modification, studying or sharing. The reason is because proprietary software comes in a version known as compiled. In the compiled version, which is also ready-to-run, the actual program code that was created by the developer, known as the source code, has been translated by a compiler into a form recognized by computers (Lerner & Tirole 2005, p. 106). It is almost impossible to modify or see how parts of a program were created by developers of the compiled versions of software. On the other hand, open source software differs from proprietary because the developers make the source code available. Via licensing, holders of copyright can provide the right to change, distribute and study the software for any intention by any user. Unlike proprietary software, developers of open source software encourage the modification of their source codes by anyone interested, believing that it will lead to error-free applications over time (Lerner & Tirole 2005, p. 104). Open source software works well with long-term projects mainly because public distribution of the source code. This is because users who rely on software to execute critical tasks will be assured that their tools will not be lost or irreparable in the event that the original developers cease working on them. This paper will research and explain the way open source software works, present data on the rates of adoption and advice a language School in Vancouver on its benefits and risks. Open source software is mostly free and built by passionate developers. Apache is one of the largest legacy open source projects that were developed independently of the movement of free software. The characteristic feature of open source software avails a program’s source code to the general public without copyright restrictions, or relaxed regulations when they occur (Deek & McHugh 2008, p. 69). With consideration that the language school needs to store personal and sensitive information on students, both proprietary and open source software-based web servers can display equal reliability in their systems. However, an open source project is organized in a very hierarchical manner that can allow programmers to modify the software in ways that customize the use of the servers according to the unique and specific needs of the school. Top programmers are charged with the responsibility of the project and given the authority to implement key revisions to the source code. Studies have estimated that the contribution of original developers to the resultant source code is approximately 25% and among all the contributors participating in a project, 70% of the source code will be credited to approximately 10% of them (Bitzer, Schrettl & Schroder 2007, p. 156). The insinuation of this examination is that there is still a core group with the responsibility of the programming stage and hence, quality, security and reliability are not necessarily compromised. Then, the rest of the developers will concentrate on phases such as testing and developing. Such openness advantageously places open source software above proprietary software because proprietary companies will have programming efforts concentrated on a small team given the responsibility of identifying and repairing possible bugs. The rationale behind open source software is founded on more people having free access to the source code, and modifiers are required to provide other developers with information on any changes they made while respecting the original creation. Hence, that means more bugs can be identified within shorter periods and not only resolved, but customized to meet more needs than the original creators had thought of without the visibility affecting the open source software’s security (Deek & McHugh 2008, p. 69). Further, web servers running on open source software, such as Linux, are stable and offer in-house control and patching, adapting and adjusting are easily executed. Other well-known and widely used examples include the Firefox web browser by Mozilla, MySQL, which is a relational database system, PHP, which is a programming language and OpenOffice.org, which is an office application suite. The presence of marketing pressures means that there are fewer conflicting priorities. This results from the fact that no single profit-making entity pushes for specific features that must be supported or delivery dates (Shapiro & Varian 2003, p. 116). Open source software is usually delivered when the development team finds the quality to be good enough or when it is ready, meaning that the software requires less updates or service packs, which lowers costs of maintenance. Open source’s true value lies in the open and collaborative community of professionals of like mind who converge to develop programs through crowd-sourcing. Because open source software was initially rooted in the academic perspective, representative organizations of proprietary software, such as Microsoft, had suspicions on them. The suspicions cited problems related to intellectual property (IP) risks, version incompatibilities, and poor funding of innovations. However, some IT companies embraced open source software for strategic and operational reasons, setting off eventual adoptions by government and private organizations. A significant example of operational use is that by Google, involving thousands of servers working on a customized edition of Linux (Shapiro & Varian 2003, p. 114). Google is therefore, benefiting by the capability to modify the system to match its requirements as well as its low costs. The United Space Alliance in the United States manages the International Space Station’s (ISS) computer systems migrated its functions to Linux from Windows. Operationally, Apple also used open source software to make considerable progress in developing it’s widely commended Mac operating system. From the strategic perspective, IBM built a large developer community with prospective customers while Sun established a huge mindshare among system administrators and programmers when it open-sourced its Solaris operating system and Java platform before it became part of Oracle. Governments picked up the trend as well. In the United States, the White House shifted its website to Linux servers whose content management was carried out through Drupal. The French Gendarmerie Nationale has already published its intention of a complete switchover to Ubuntu, which is an open source software, by 2015. In India, the government of Kerala officially announced in its 2001 State IT Policy its support for open source software. The City of Munich in Germany also published its switchover intention 2003. By 2010, the city had achieved 20% of its adoption and implementation of SuSE Linux from an operating system based on Microsoft Windows (Spinellis 2011, p. 43). The Decree 3390, a Venezuelan law was enforced in 2004, which mandated the transition by all public agencies into open source software. Malaysia, on the other hand, had saved millions of dollars by 2008 by transitioning to open source software from proprietary. The Peruvian government voted and adopted open source software across all public bodies in 2005. This, the government said, was to ensure the safeguarding of key democracy pillars. Following suit, the Brazilian government advocated the distribution of cheap, Linux-run computers through the entirety of its poor communities in 2006 when their purchase was subsidized with tax breaks (Spinellis 2011, p. 42). Open source software, however, also present risks and disadvantages to users just like any other software in which things are bound go wrong occasionally. When a project does not operate as intended, the programmers will have to dedicate time to debug the problem, which entails laborious reading of codes, working with open source communities or providers of open source support. This is contrary to proprietary software, whereby once it is ascertained that the hitch arose from the vendor’s code, the user simply files a ticket and the software firm does the rest (Lerner & Tirole 2005, p. 86). Then, there is the necessity of complying with the specified license terms of all the components used in the project when running open source software. This is an issue because understanding the terms of, for example, an Apache Software License in opposition to General Public License can take a considerable amount of time. Different terms in licensing may also apply based on the open source components used and the way they are used, such as solely for internal purposes or distribution to third parties. Unlike users of open source software, those who run proprietary software do not need to be concerned with such licensing matters. Another considerable hazard is that there is no guarantee of development ever happening, because there is no sure way of telling whether a project will go up to a usable stage. Even if it does, it may soon collapse in the event of failing interest. Although this risk is not specific to open source software because it is also found in proprietary software, it is more pronounced in open source software especially in projects that kick off without sufficient support from one company or more (Lerner & Tirole 2005, p. 121). With the development base still being built and the source base still immature, the initial gap is significant enough to collapse a project. Intellectual property-related problems may be of particular significance in regions, for example, the US that accepts algorithm and software patents. It is not rare to come upon challenges in determining whether some methods of software problem solutions are patented, rendering the community guilty of infringing intellectual property. Despite these bottlenecks, it is suggested that the school uses open source software for its web servers rather than proprietary software for various reasons including flexibility, security, interoperability, transparency and perpetuity. Another reason, which is in a unique class, is localization, especially in the perspective of the local government, which is also in charge of making software decisions. This is a unique class because the government owes its tax payers a fiduciary duty and intrinsic responsibility which entails critical analysis of all factors in the decision to implement open source options or procure proprietary software. The advantages and benefits of using open source software, and hence the recommendation, start with the significance of availability of, and right to modify, the source code. The school administrators will be free to tune and improve software products and also be able to port them to new hardware, adapt to dynamic conditions and achieve detailed comprehension of the operation of the system. This is greatly advantageous because experts are coming to consensus that applications must be made available in their source form so that there life spans can be extended. Studies have indicated that presently, binary-only applications older than 10 years can only be found to be operational if they have been modified (Deek & McHugh 2008, p. 221). The right to redistribute the codes after modifying and improving them as well as reusing other open source code, will allow the school all advantages associated with the software’s modifiability shared by a wide community. This is important because it marks a key difference between open source software licenses and the free ones; since redistribution rights are free and cannot be invalidated, substantial crowds of developers are attracted to work on projects that run open source software. Then, since users usually retain the right to use the software in whatever way they find fit, coupled with the right to redistribute, a large use population is guaranteed if the software becomes significantly useful. This, in turn, will help in the establishment of a market for customization and support of the software, further attracting more developers who can work on the project. Inadvertently, this will lead to an improvement in the product’s quality and functionality. Finally, there is the aspect of cooperation in projects being developed on open source software. Developers in such projects cooperate on higher levels than their peers on proprietary software (Spinellis 2011, p. 71). The design phase, in particular, is completely open for collaboration among developers leading to high levels of information flux hence, problems are resolved through consensus by the core developers. This results in commitment to the project by the developers. References Bitzer, J, Schrettl, W & Schroder, P 2007, ‘Intrinsic motivation in open source software development’, Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. 35, no.1, .154-169. Deek, F & McHugh, J 2008, Open source: technology and policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lerner, J & Tirole, J 2005, ‘ The economics of technology sharing: open source and beyond’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 99-120. Shapiro, C & Varian, H 2003, Information rules: a Strategic guide to the network economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Spinellis, D 2011, Code quality: the open source perspective. Addison-Wesley, Boston. Read More