Open source vs. the constraints of licensed technology

Thomas’ and Jones’ articles really stood out to me since, lately, I’ve been interested in open source software as a public technology. Thomas asserts that “virus programmers have a long history of sharing code and ideas, a process which is similar to the early computer programmers of the 1960s and 1970s. What these hackers used to refer to as ‘bumming code’ is a standard for development in the virus community” (p. 266). In addition, Jones begins his article with a brief explanation of Wikipedia: “Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of that person’s background or expertise, and the wiki software that powers the site instantly publishes those edits to the Web” (p. 262).

These articles reminded me of something I read in Wired magazine a while back. The article looked at Google’s new Internet browser, Chrome. In the article, Ben Goodger, part of the Chrome development team, “ talks about the benefits of making Chrome an open source product — the code will be publicly released and a community will emerge to determine the browser's evolution..."It'll enable people to do things we haven't thought of. And it'll generate trust that we're not doing something evil” (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-10/mf_chrome?currentPage=4). While I'm sure we could make a long list of the pros and cons of Google, this is an interesting development in their software. 

Likewise, Mozilla has been producing open source software for awhile. Their purpose for doing so is expressed on their web site: “The common thread that runs throughout Mozilla is our belief that, as the most significant social and technological development of our time, the Internet is a public resource that must remain open and accessible to all. With this in mind, our efforts are ultimately driven by our mission of encouraging choice, innovation and opportunity online” (http://www.mozilla.org/about/).

As a combination of Jones’ and Thomas’ research, it would be interesting to look at the writing practices of open source software “writers” (although this has probably been done...). As the virus-writers created code to subvert the commercialization of computer technology, it seems that open source code writers work in similar ways. Rather than creating a piece of technology to copyright and sell, groups like Mozilla create software with the inherent purpose of encouraging its evolution through a community of like-minded people.

It’s interesting to think about what rights are allowed to the end user of various software. It’s almost assumed that a user of Mozilla software or other open source technology might consider changing the code to their liking. When you use a licensed software, say from Apple, Microsoft, or Adobe, you can pay loads of money but only have the ability to use the software within the constraints designated by the programmers. While I agree that, for example, Adobe Photoshop is built on a ridiculously complicated code structure, and it might be worth some (all?) of the cost to buy it, I wonder how it might be changed if it were open source? The end users, probably web and print designers and photographers, know what they are comfortable with and what they’d like to change.

I’ve been using licensed software for so long that it’s difficult for me to comprehend changing the way I use my computer. First of all, I can’t write code. I understand the bare basics of how HTML works, but beyond that, I’d need some training. That’s not the obstacle for me; once I learned how to write code or change programs, I’d like to tweak the ones I already have to do things I want them to do. Unfortunately, licensed products don’t allow the end user any creativity with their product beyond the use for which it was designed (I’m sure you could crack the code for any of these softwares, but I’m talking in a general sense here).

The creators of virii seem to have found a way to subvert the constraints of commercialized technology. I’m not a fan of nefarious virii that crash personal computers just because the user doesn’t know anything about their technology (aka Dark Angel, Thomas p. 268). I agree that the user of any technology would be better off understanding the inner workings of these devices and programs, but shouldn’t be viciously punished for ignorance. But the premises Dark Angel uses are significant: ignorance leaves users open to computer virii. Beyond that, ignorance keeps users from expanding on their literacies and abilities; if we don’t understand the technology, we cannot possibly begin to work outside that which constrains us.