Open Source is Ideal, Open Formats are Critical
by Kristin Shoemaker - Oct. 17, 2008Comments (1)- Related Blog Posts
- Open-Xchange and SugarCRM Join Forces to Integrate and Share Data
- Windows (L)users Are People, Too
- Military Medicine Foundation Opts for Open Solution With Bluenog
- The Great Software Freedom Debate, Part 368
- Sun Exec Proposes Software Freedom Definition and Vendor Scorecard
It seems, lately, more people are embracing open source software. From the Android phone to OpenOffice.org's latest, free software is getting (well deserved) good press.
In a perfect world, all projects would make their code freely available, and everyone could benefit from the resulting innovation, security and interoperability. Since it's likely the planet will be waiting a long while for perfection on a few fronts, would approaching open source adoption differently -- same goal, different strategies -- help foster interest and acceptance? How can advocates show the greatest benefits of open source to the most people in the least amount of time?
More emphasis on the importance of open file formats would seem a reasonable starting point. Why? Wouldn't tackling the source code, and encouraging openness there make proprietary file formats a thing of the past anyway? Wouldn't it, ultimately, be a duplication of effort?
There are two reasons that the open format aspect of the free software movement needs special attention. The first is simply that file formats are familiar to anyone who has ever worked with a computer. The code that makes an application run is an abstract concept to many, and whether it is open, or closed, means very little. There are few people who can say they've never received a file they've needed to edit, or open -- but couldn't with the software on their computers.
Telling people that open software is useful is fine. People who aren't necessarily open source enthusiasts using it, and seeing that it's useful is better still. But open source code is a foggy concept, even if people genuinely like the resulting application. It doesn't take much more than a supervisor's file requiring immediate edits that can't be opened, or a slideshow appearing radically different when shown in another version of the software it was created in, for people to understand the importance of open formats.
It can certainly be argued that it's not quite the same thing. And that is one hundred percent correct, it isn't the same. But it is a frame of reference that many can relate to -- and the concepts are related, and overlap.
The second reason open formats need a boost to ultimately promote open source is a social issue. It is stated nicely in the GeekPAC position paper:
...we would even go so far as to suggest that information rights are human rights, because of the fundamental role that information plays in shaping our culture and economy. Information plays such a fundamental role in our daily lives, in fact, that to restrict one's access is to restrict one's ability to fully participate in a global culture, thus handicapping economic progress.
It sounds dramatic. It is dramatic. Look at it this way: Open formats bring information to every person with access to a computer. Information is inherently valuable. Again, a frame of reference comes in to play here -- I know something I did not previously because I could access information with tools I already possessed. The value of the open format transfers to the value of the open code.
Encouraging software developers (whether new to the industry or well established) to open their code, and encouraging others to try open source software is always worth the effort. This shouldn't be set aside. It seems, though, that an emphasis on promoting openness in an area many relate to, and can actively benefit from, could bring new levels of support and appreciation for all that open source software has to offer.
