Software, Biology and Beer (0)

Software. Biology. Beer. What do these three things have in common? The answer: All are available as open source.

I hear the phrase “open source” being thrown around a lot these days, and much of the time it’s not being used in the traditional way. The purpose of this entry is not to complain about a misuse of language, but rather to hilight the mutating use of a phrase. Trust, I’m a believer in evolving language.

Before software programs become software programs they start out as source code. Source code comes in two major varieties: open and closed. Open source software is typically free to obtain, and more importantly, its source code is available to open inspection and free modification. This is where the phrase “open source” originated. The “source” in “open source” literally refers to the source code of a programming language.

Although the term “open source” wasn’t coined until 1998, the concept of open source software has existed since at least the 1960’s, and probably even earlier than that. In fact, the spirit of open source programming has existed much longer than computer programming itself. Native Americans taught English colonists new farming methods such as crop rotation. The pilgrims, in turn, taught the Native Americans hunting techniques. When these two groups learned from one another, and improved upon their techniques, they were in effect practicing open source beliefs. I’m sure that if I had paid more attention in history class I could find even more cases from the past. Perhaps you can think of other examples in the history of mankind. (In the spirit of open source, be sure to let me know if you do!)

For its first four years of having a name, open source was quite happy describing software that was free and open. Since 2002, however, I’ve heard the phrase “open source” used to describe a lot of things that have nothing to do with software. My favorites include Open Source Biology and Open Source Beer.

Motivations

Before diving into these examples, let’s first understand the motivations of open source software developers. What drives a programmer to give his/her work away for free? I believe that there are three major motivations for working on open source software: Curiosity, ego and goodwill.

Software programmers are inherently curious creatures. As youngsters, we were the type to disassemble our toys instead of playing with them in the intended ways. When using somebody else’s software, I often find myself wondering “how’d they do that?” Open source software allows a curious developer to quickly turn this question into an answer. Sharing your code with others entices others to share theirs with you. I think an element of open source software involves the “show me yours and I’ll show you mine” mentality.

Software programmers are notoriously egotistical. Personally, I think this has something to do with compensating for what we lacked in high-school gym class. The only thing cooler than showing off the new program that you built is showing off how it works. You can make an analogy between software programmers and car mechanics. It’s not enough to flaunt the sexy exterior of your car…you have to show off what’s under the hood. Open source software lets us flaunt our engines.

That said, the strongest motivation behind the open source movement is the desire to benefit the world around us. Should the concept of “operating system” belong to the wealthy or should it belong to mankind? Should the concept of “database” belong to the wealthy or should it belong to mankind? Making free software benefits for-profit corporations in the United States, governments in Asia and schoolchildren in Africa. I can’t think of another way to make such an impact all at once. Some would call this communism, but if this is communism then wouldn’t that also make all volunteer firefighters communist?

Open Source Biology

Open source biology is a collobarative form of science being promoted by progressive biologists around the world. With open source biology, researchers share their data with their peers early in the scientific process. Rather than waiting years to draw their own conclusions, these biologists often make their research public information as they gather it. This provides them with instant feedback and possible insight they might not have otherwise received. Jonas Salk may never have developed a cure for polio if it weren’t for the innovations of John Enders. Salk’s vaccine would not have saved as many lives if it weren’t for the improvements made by Albert Sabin. As is the case with open source software, open source biology isn’t new. Although an old idea, it’s catchy new name is helping open source biology garner lots of attention.

In order for open source biology to succeed, it often requires scientists and the universities/companies that sponsor them to forego intellectual property rights. After all, how can scientists freely build upon each others’ work if lawyers and patents were to get in their way? While pharmaceutical companies are driven by profit, many biologists are driven by a goodwill that an open source programmer would quickly recognize. To an open source biologist, saving lives is more important than making money.

Open Source Beer

Demonstrating that open source principles can be applied to almost anything, students at the IT University in Copenhagen have created a recipe for open source beer. Released under a Creative Commons License, the world is free to brew, drink and even sell beer made from this recipe. (As long as proper credit is given to the original authors.)

I think their tagline should be, “Open Source Beer: Eliminating copyright restrictions and sexual inhibitions since 2004.”

If you’re looking to brew something other than beer, be sure to check out the open source cookbook.

Open Access

It’s clear that open source is no longer just about software. Today, “open source” has less to do with software source code and more to do with a spirt of openness and goodwill towards others. Should the phrase “open source” continue to be used in these other contexts or should we seek a broader term? Personally, I think the phrase “open access” is a better fit. Open access software, open access biology and open access beer all roll off the tongue well enough. I also think that “access” is much more on target with the main principle in play. With software, biology and beer, open source is the means to open access for all.

I realize it will be difficult to reverse the trend. I mean, if P. Diddy still gets called Puff Daddy then how can I hope to change the language?