Joseph Seamons 1

Joseph Seamons
12/05/2014
The Open Source Initiative: Why You are Wasting Money

Consider this: the average American spends more than $300 on software yearly. Software, or
the total programs and operating information used by a computer, can include anything from the very
OS (operating system) that runs your computer, to a program that you download from the internet.
Software allows users to accomplish tasks, complete work, and improve individual lifestyles. These
pieces of code improve our lives tenfold. But, what many users do not realize, is that they are wasting
money on many of the programs that they purchase. Open Source Programs provide a much better
option than Closed Source Programs.
In the late 1990's, a corporation introduced their name, the OSI, or Open Source Initiative.
Their goal was, and is, to [Spread] software that can be freely used, changed, and shared (in modified
or unmodified form) by anyone (opensource.org) Open Source Software, put simply, is software that
has attained a Software License that complies with the Open Source Definition. (see above) Licenses,
or special permissions to use a program or rights to a program, include the Apache License 2.0, the
GNU General Public License, and the Eclipse Public License. Generally, these licenses allow software
to be freely distributed and modified.
So how can Open Source Programs help users? The possibilities are fairly endless. Possibly
the most relevant potentials to the general population are the opportunities of company independence,
lowered costs, and user development and improvement. By just these three prospects, any user can
attain higher levels of efficiency and financial security towards computer use.

Lowered costs are sure to attract even the most stringent Apple user. Every user has

Joseph Seamons 2
experienced it: purchasing a program, and using it only to find it was not nearly worth the work and
money needed to achieve it. Many programs that are used for office work and artistic development
cost extravagant amounts of capital. So the first question arises: why do programs cost so much?
Robert David Steele, a former CIA case officer and founder of the US Marine Corps Intelligence
Activity, presented an issue: Power is centralized in the hands of increasingly specialized 'elites' and
'experts' who not only fail to achieve all they promise but use secrecy and the control of information to
deceive the public into allowing them to retain power over community resources that they ultimately
loot ( Ahmed, Nafeez) Power and resources are being held in enormous monopolies, controlled by a
few elite corporations, such as Adobe, Microsoft, and Autodesk. Because these companies completely
control the pool of workers and users, they can raise the price as they please. Because of this, programs
cost almost more than private users can afford. Maya, by Autodesk, costs $3675 to purchase. Entrance
to the Adobe Cloud costs upwards of $39 a month, or $468 a year, while Microsoft Office costs
$164.49 and must be updated often. Unfortunately for these programs, Open Source programs have
existed and are being created that are free, safe, and provide better results. Blender, a 3d image
creation program, (the equal of Maya) costs absolutely nothing. LibreOffice, the reciprocal of
Microsoft Office, costs nothing, and runs on more computers. Any user, no matter how experienced or
new to Open Source, can produce and experience superior results for no cost, as opposed to extraneous
costs yearly, and poor performance.

Second, user development is a perfect situation. All programs, no matter how complex, undergo
a process known as debugging, or the act of removing errors from the machine code used to run the
program. Debugging is a tedious process that can cover anywhere from a month to five years. A

program is developed, and then dedicated developers will throw themselves against the code, weeding

Joseph Seamons 3
out errors and bugs. The main issue arises from the fact that programs must be tested over, and over
again to witness any or all bugs. This process causes the price of Non-Open Source programs, already
quite high, to launch dramatically upward. Conversely, Open Source programs use a different method
of debugging. The program, not debugged, is released to the public in a Test Build. The public will use
the new version of the program, and when bugs are discovered, send in reports to the developers of the
program. Blender, the aforementioned application, completes the debug process normally in less than a
month, for no cost to the Blender Organization. (to view test builds of Blender, visit
https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/) The same process works for all Open Source programs.
Another attribute of user development is the freedom granted by Open Source Licenses, namely the
ability to modify or recode the program(s) and distribute the newly formed copies. Users have the
ability to change the program to their specific needs, or the needs of others. This increases productivity
and program diversity. Customers to these programs will have high satisfaction and raised interest,
and as a result will donate to support Open Source Projects. The result? A continuously rising stream
of better software and free information that will better all Users, no matter their standing. Community
sharing of information, and community definition of truth derived in transparency and authenticity, are
the ultimate arbiters of shared wealth. (Ahmed, Nafeez)

A result of the first two points is Company Independence. Every corporation or company has
specific needs for its own work flow. General corporations and monopolies cannot provide specific
requests, as their programs need to cover a wide variety of uses. Tailoring of programs, when possible,
assists companies in maximizing efficiency, security, and satisfaction. Of course, only Open Source
Programs can be changed in this way. Also, removing the reliance many companies have on
monopolies such as Microsoft Office will allow those companies to standardize their own, personal
technique of creation and work, instead of conforming to generalistic methods. "The whole point of

Joseph Seamons 4
Open Source is to restore public agency. Open Source is the only form of information and information
technology that is affordable to the majority, inter-operable across all boundaries, and rapidly scalable
from local to global without the curse of overhead that proprietary corporations impose. (Ahmed,
Nafeez) Offices will be able to gain higher levels of profit and benefit the general population to much
higher levels than before, if Open Source were the only type of software available.

The prospect of making the switch to Open Source is intimidating to many. The argument
arises that with this software, users will become confused and not be able to use the programs
efficiently. Of course, no users of any Open Source program are obligated to provide assistance to
problems and questions. But, as has been the case with every Free Rights Program, (Open Source)
elite users and developers are more than happy to assist with problems, if only to build the program in
popularity and increase donations to projects. Also, many users are worried that job loss will result of
making the switch to Open Source. While it is true that many programs, such as Apple, Microsoft, and
Adobe, will lose revenue, they will easily be able to make the switch from Closed Source developers to
Open Source developers. Android is a prime example of this. Google was terrified that Apple would
end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had
no mobile foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project. (Ron Amadeo)
Users do not have to pay anything for an Android OS. (Operating System) Yet, Android companies
such as Google and Droid have been capable of pulling in almost twice as much profit as leading
companies such as Apple and Microsoft. But, even Android is falling into the pit of Closed Source.
While Android is open, it's more of a "look but don't touch" kind of open. You're allowed to contribute
to Android and allowed to use it for little hobbies, but in nearly every area, the deck is stacked against
anyone trying to use Android without Google's blessing. The second you try to take Android and do
something that Google doesn't approve of, it will bring the world crashing down upon you. (Ron

Joseph Seamons 5
Amadeo) Still, Android remains an example of an Open Source Project that was successful and
profitable.
Open Source is a wonderful option for any user that wishes to accomplish exemplary work for
no cost whatsoever. Company independence, costs, and user development all contribute to the plethora
of Software that is Open Source. Why is Open Source not the only type of Software in use today?
Simple. Nobody knows about it.

c c c c c c c c c

Joseph Seamons 6
*Works Cited

1.
The Open Source Initiative The Open Source Initiative. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. <http://opensource.org/>

2.
Ahmed, Nafeez. "The Open Source Revolution." Theguardian.com. 19 June 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/19/open-source-revolution-conquerone-percent-cia-spy>

3. Amadeo, Ron. "Controlling Open Source by Any Means Necessary." Arstechnica.com. Aurich
Lawson, 20 Oct. 2013. Web. <http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-androidcontrolling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/>

*for further reading and annotated notes on more articles, see Open Source Programs: Bibliography
by Joseph Seamons

Joseph Seamons 7

Inspiration and Further Works: Bibliography

1.
The Open Source Initiative The Open Source Initiative. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. <http://opensource.org/>

2.
Ahmed, Nafeez. "The Open Source Revolution." Theguardian.com. 19 June 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/19/open-source-revolution-conquerone-percent-cia-spy>

3. Amadeo, Ron. "Controlling Open Source by Any Means Necessary." Arstechnica.com. Aurich
Lawson, 20 Oct. 2013. Web. <http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-androidcontrolling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/>

4. Stallman, Richard. "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software." Www.gnu.org. Free
Software Foundation, 22 Dec. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/opensource-misses-the-point.html>.

5. 5. "About the FSF." Free Software. Free Software Foundation, 7 July 2011. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.fsf.org/>.

6. Harrison, Michael. "Oculus Open Source Aquisition and Blender." Opensource.com. The Open
Source Foundation, 12 July 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <http://opensource.com/life/14/7/open-sourcegames-july-12>.