Open Source Life: How the open movement will change everything
Consider this: in just a few short years, the open-source encyclopedia Wikipedia has made closed-source encyclopedias obsolete — both the hard-bound kind and the CD-ROM or commercial online kind. Goodbye World Book and Brittanica.
Sure, these companies still exist, but their customer base is rapidly shrinking as more and more people would rather go with Wikipedia — it’s free, it’s easy to use, and it’s much, much more up-to-date.
This is but one example of how the concept of open source has changed our lives already. Over the next 10 years or so, we’ll be seeing many more examples, and the effects could change just about every aspect of our lives.
The open-source concept was popularized through GNU and the GPL, and it has spread ever since, in an increasingly rapid manner. The open-source OS, Linux, has been growing in users exponentially over the last few years, and while it still has a ways to go before it can challenge Microsoft or Apple, it has become a viable and even desirable alternative for many.
Open-source alternatives have been growing in number and breadth: from office software to financial software to web and desktop utilities to games, just about any software you can think of has an open-source alternative. And in many cases, the open-source version is better.
Now consider this: the open-source concept doesn’t have to just apply to software. It can apply to anything in life, any area where information is currently in the hands of few instead of many, any area where a few people control the production and distribution and improvement of a product or service or entity.
Now, the following examples are going to sound idealistic, and they are, but they are possibilities that could turn into probabilities in the next few year, or the next 10-20 years. Only time will tell, but it’s worth thinking about.
- Schools. Currently, knowledge and the teaching of that knowledge is in the hands of a few, from elementary to high schools to higher education. But why do we need to go through the public or private school system, and why does Harvard and Stanford and MIT control the education of our professionals and academics? Homeschooling, for example, is a growing movement that allows parents to regain control of their child’s education, to move away from an authoritarian setting of mind control and towards one of learning, of questioning, of critical thinking — and that’s really what education should be. Please understand that I’m not blaming the teachers — they are good people with good intentions, but they are bound by the school system, which is really controlled by our government. The open-source concept can be applied to higher education: imagine an online school for programmers or accountants or businesspeople, where the real professionals decide the curriculum and teach the classes and give out the certificates. If this alternative grows in acceptance (and this will take a long time to happen), there is no reason why a Harvard business degree would be better than an open-source one, which would also be much less expensive.
- Government. Our governments are controlled by a relatively small number of people (the politicians and technocrats), who control many aspects of our lives, from taxes and government spending to regulation of the Internet and commerce. But imagine that open-source alternatives for these functions, perhaps one at a time, are created and grow in acceptance. This may be difficult to imagine, but the example of schools given above are just one way this could happen. Email is another example of how a government function can be co-opted, as the postal system is less necessary than before — fewer people use the postal system to write letters, and the days of getting bills in the mail may soon be a thing of the past. Perhaps not every government function can be co-opted (although it’s possible), but if enough government services become obsolete because of better alternatives, the justification of taxes becomes weaker. Open-source helping of the poor, instead of government welfare. Open-source medical help, instead of the government’s public health system. There are many possibilities.
- Corporations. This will sound idealistic, but consider that the power of corporations is their ability to control knowledge, and the manufacture and distribution of products and services. If their knowledge becomes free through alternatives — think corporate media vs. blogs — then the corporations are no longer needed. Even manufacturing could become decentralized if the patents on the product become open-sourced.
- Entertainment. The music, movie, television, book, and magazine industries are currently closed-source — with production and distribution of these entertainment sources controlled by a relative few. Only a small number of people release albums or movies or books, though there are many other talented people out there. Approval for contracts of these things are controlled by a small number of people. There are a limited number of channels through which they can be distributed. But consider an open-source alternative, where people collaborate on music and release it to the public through the Internet. It’s already happening on the Internet with the book and magazine industries, as people can distribute free e-books or write blogs or collaborate on cookbooks and how-to manuals. There’s no reason such collaboration and free distribution couldn’t happen with other entertainment, even if the production is a bit more difficult or expensive.
- Money. This will seem like a stretch, but what is money? It’s a closed-source system that says that in exchange for giving me your product or service, I will give you a voucher that you can use elsewhere to get products or services (or however you want to use your voucher). An open-source alternative could be created, and as long as people trust the system, there’s no reason it has to be controlled by governments and couldn’t be used worldwide.
- Internet. Most products or services on the Internet right now are closed-sourced, including Google and Microsoft and Yahoo. That will likely change as people start developing open-source alternatives to these products and services. There are already a few out there, from open-source email and search to the wiki alternatives of online dictionaries, Internet directories, and so on.
Tags: 
Loading ...
Comments
Guy Snir says on June 18th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I am a fan of this movement myself.
I started to compile a list of non-software open source “things” (It is still short, but hopefully will grow with time)
I called it “Open Source World”: http://www.opensourceguy.net/open-source-world/
Anyway, I enjoyed your innovative ideas (especially the money example…really got me thinking!)
Regards,
Guy Snir
cyarb says on June 18th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I think I’m gonna go throw up now. It all sounds like anarchy to me?
Cholin says on June 18th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I like it! Although this does take some imagination, it’s not totally improbable. Also, it’s not really anarchy, but people working legally around a system.
Brad Pitcher says on June 18th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
It’s called democracy.
Anonymous Coward says on June 18th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
What you are saying doesn’t quite make sense, but I think I get the gist of it.
For example, I think you could apply the ideas of open source to school curriculum, but not to schools themselves. (Maybe it is a product vs. service thing?)
You might want to check out MIT’s open courseware. That is a step in the right direction.
Also, I believe the post office is self-funding. So, I don’t think there is any tax benefit there…
Moultrie Creek says on June 18th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I think you are already seeing some effect in the government arena - look at sites like OpenCongress (http://www.opencongress.org/) and Porkbusters (http://www.porkbusters.org/) which are changing how Congress does business. Open source is the tool, but it takes people to make any of these things happen.
Travis says on June 18th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Good article! I think there are some intermediate steps between open source OS and open source government, but it is a nice dream. And no, it’s not anarchy, anarchy means no government.
Craig says on June 18th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Imagine that, the government handling only the things the the open (free) market does not. Sounds strangely familiar.
Jimbo says on June 18th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
“Linux…it still has a ways to go before it can challenge Microsoft or Apple” - There are more Linux users than Mac users already!!
Chaplin says on June 18th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Just wait for free open source energy to hit the world
Prohibitoid says on June 18th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Hello, Democracy. Perhaps after this transition we can finally have earned all the lip-service we love to give ourselves, “land of the free.” Let’s finally actually be free! I take this idea very, very seriously and it’s the full realization of the open-source idea, far beyond software–I think that will be remembered as what made people take the idea of cooperative ownership seriously (yucky communism, right?).
Random Flotsom says on June 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Wow… and again the world is on the verge of an intellectual revolution - will we have a dark age or a renassiance next?
Rob says on June 18th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
For open source education, take a look at Curriki.org — a wiki-editable curriculum builder with a really solid nonprofit organization behind it.
I don’t think they’re looking to abolish government schools, but it would make them considerably more democratic.
jgasm says on June 18th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
After reading the article, I think the author makes some pretty big leaps with his open source analogy.
“Perhaps not every government function can be co-opted (although it’s possible), but if enough government services become obsolete because of better alternatives, the justification of taxes becomes weaker. Open-source helping of the poor, instead of government welfare. Open-source medical help, instead of the government’s public health system.”
I would like to know what “open source helping of the poor” is ? Maybe I dont know what open source is anymore…
I’m surprised the article didn’t have some sort of “Open Source Deity” everyone can worship instead of all those proprietary gods.
Daniel says on June 18th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
As an independent filmmaker I like the idea of more open methods of distribution and some ideas of open source are good. However, consider this: It costs between $120,000 - $250,000 to produce a feature length movie (It’s much cheaper since I don’t use those crazy actors from california). I can’t just give that away for free, or my kids won’t eat. Free is good for some things, but not all.
rad says on June 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Alternative systems of payment as described - “what is money? It’s a closed-source system that says that in exchange for giving me your product or service, I will give you a voucher that you can use elsewhere to get products or services (or however you want to use your voucher). An open-source alternative could be created, and as long as people trust the system, there’s no reason it has to be controlled by governments” - -
this already exists. It’s called a money order.
As for wikipedia.com, I call it a nexus of misinformation. I would never consider it as a reliable source. Open-source and user-generated structures simply fall to the lowest common denominator.
Robespierre says on June 18th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Indeed it does sound like anarchy. Depending on your outlook could either be the complete embrace of democracy or the exact opposite of it. Either way the author makes good points.
Open Source fedgov. To the doubters, think of it this way: fedgov is windows/microsoft. You can go out and vote about which browser to use, IE, Firefox, now Safari, (the political parties) and there are certainly differences between them, but in the end, you are still using windows.
Some dude says on June 18th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I’m with jgasm on this one: there are some big leaps in the analogies.
Take the education argument: there is nothing that prevents you getting an education outside of a traditional public/private college. It’s just that employers like to see a degree from an accredited school for certain jobs. In this case, ‘real professionals decide the curriculum’ by requiring the degree.
The only thing proprietary about Harvard is the prestige you gain by graduating from there. If employers are willing to pay more for someone with a Harvard degree, then once again, real professionals are rewarding a particular curriculum.
Insomnius says on June 18th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I’m a big fan of open source, but I think claiming that Wikipedia has made closed-source encyclopedias obsolete is a step too far.
Closed-source encyclopedias don’t have pages locked because of recurrent vandalism and POV-pushing. Closed-source encyclopedias aren’t viewed as utterly worthless for academic reference purposes. Wikipedia has its uses, but it’s also far too unreliable to be spoken of quite so highly.
As for the rest of it, the pinko zenarchist in me thinks it sounds pretty great. The cynic in me thinks it sounds utterly unmanageable. So, there you go.
Thom says on June 18th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Open source money is… idiocy. The open source philosophy would be to abolish money as much as possible. Though this sounds insane, think about it; money is a guarantee of exchange, unit for unit. What if there was an implicit guarantee of exchange? I will use your programming IDE for free, and in return you and anyone else will be able to use the software I write. If I write a movie studio application, then anyone can use it for free, and in return I and anyone else will be able to view their movies for free.
This gets slightly more difficult with physical products. For example, if everything is free then what motive do farmers have to actually grow the food we need to survive? This is the difference between communism and open source: the communists would say that each person has an obligation to the community they are required by law to fulfill. Open source philosophy states that each person produces what they, personally, want or need and that others are entitled to any fruits of their labor that can be shared without cost.
Ben Clapton says on June 19th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Some very interesting ideas, and again some very interesting responses.
First my thoughts on the article. The Open-Source idea for various areas of life works well, in theory. Some one designs an “open source” style of government - in a sense that is something like the Westminster System that is in use in England and Australia, and other various places. In it the basic principals are the same, but they have modified it to suit their situation. So in a sense, we already have an open-source government. What I think he means though by an open source government is complete clarity - no discussions behind closed doors, anyone can come in and have their say. For example, say the government is holding a debate on stem cell cloning. The debate isn’t just limited to the elected members of parliament, but other interested parties can come and have their say, and possibly swing the politicians vote.
It’s not anarchy, as they’re not saying that we want no government. The recognition is there that we do need a government - but that the system we have at the moment is flawed - some people have too much say in how the country is run, who haven’t necessarily been elected by the people. In a sense, it’s almost a form of democratic socialism, more than anarchy.
But as with many things, it seems like communism. Great in theory, but often doesn’t work in practice. It would be interesting to see the open source movement spread - from programs, out into small companies, to franchises, larger corporations, the entertainment industry, and so on and so forth. I think Governments and money would be the last ones to switch to open source…
Gina says on June 19th, 2007 at 3:01 am
I’m with open source. Open source life signifies that we are also open to changes making us more flexible.
oluxxx says on June 19th, 2007 at 4:16 am
open source is all about people directly contributing to something and that only those people, who actually contribute, get rewarded with fame and get the chicks. but thats not enough even for open source - it needs some kind of a very good system of exchange that is still closed-source and very well controlled and organized. and that means it has to be on that basis where there has to be a kind of input from folks who do nothing. and there comes again the cool tax system in the picture. so now you pay taxes, not only for the government, but actually for the services you get offered from the open source community consisting of the people who really deserve to be in and eventually don’t have to pay or even become some “motivation money” from all the others.
so in the end, there would be no piracy anymore because everything would be purely free (not tax free) and we would have actually a real elite little society people can look up to besides paris hilton as a side-product and much more things that could make this society a much better place.
i sure would have liked to be born 100 years later to see it somehow work or die in WW3.
peace!
Eric says on June 19th, 2007 at 9:22 am
First, I think its important to thank the author for throwing out an interesting idea…thanks. Secondly, you folks who flame need to bring some civility into your dialog. It’s (often) easy to shoot something down, but getting it flying in the first place takes work and that deserves a modicum of respect.
Currently, knowledge and the teaching of that knowledge is in the hands of a few, from elementary to high schools to higher education. But why do we need to go through the public or private school system, and why does Harvard and Stanford and MIT control the education of our professionals and academics? Homeschooling, for example…
Control is not exerted without authority and accountability. These schools derive their authority through being very good at what they do. Open-source is good at what it does, but there is a lack of accountability that will ultimately quell adoption because people, and groups of people, will be uncomfortable without that accountability. To go from discussing those schools in one sentence, to homeschooling in the next is quite a stretch. Teaching your kids about simple physics in the kitchen is one thing, but teaching your kid Quantum Physics is quite another. I believe that there are social and knowledge ramifications to home schooling, also, but have no proof. I just can’t believe that being absent from the free exchange of ideas at the formative years would be a good thing.
There is a similar concept in the portion about corporations. Saying that corporations have power because they control knowledge is overly simplistic. They actually have power because they control *valuable* knowledge, and, ironically enough, they frequently have this valuable knowledge because they hired the guys and girls of MIT and Harvard and they produced the thing of value because they had (arguably) better training and schooling.
All this being said, I still support the idea of open-source. I just think that there are some inherent flaws in the current model and it needs further development before it can truly fly.
Pax,
-e
Terinea Weblog says on June 19th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I really hope Open Source gets bigger and bigger.
Raf says on June 19th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Open source applied to music is the focus of our site, http://www.kompoz.com. It’s a beautiful thing when musicians collaborate to create music that is authored under a licensing model of the Creative Commons.
Jeremy says on June 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I’ve held the belief for some time now that school textbooks (especially at the higher education level) are one of the most insane rackets in the world.
How can our public schools justify continuing to spend upwards of $60-$80 PER BOOK for a bunch of information that’s possibly obsolete the minute the ink dries on that dinosaur publishing medium known as paper?
Here’s my vision (if you think I could run for local school board on this, let me know):
ALL textbooks for middle and high school are living spaces on the web in which current graduate students and professors create the content and link to relating documents, media and sources. With the savings, each student is issued an Ubuntu based laptop for which they also learn how to build/configure/troubleshoot themselves. For anything that absolutely needs to be printed, 100% post-consumer recycled paper is available throughout the school.
chojojo says on June 19th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
If you think about it, money isn’t even a fair form of exchange. At least not in the US. I can almost guarantee that _someone_ along the line was fucked over before the money you received got to you. Somebody was taken advantage of.
The open source philosophy, to me, means contributing to a project with the betterment of humanity in mind. In this day and age, why should we be charging people for education? The world would be a hell of a lot better if everybody had access to free, quality, education.
People should be writing free interactive mathematics software. I don’t see why we don’t already have access to this type of stuff. And if anybody wants to respond to that with “It takes time and resources,” we live in a world with 6 billion+ people. Not everybody is busy.
Helen says on June 19th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I agree with Insomnius regarding the effects of wikipedia to closed-source encyclopedia. I think closed-source encyclopedias still have a voice, especially on underdeveloped countries which are not updated in terms of technology.
Cameron says on June 20th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Insomnius, I think you’re being a little unfair to Wikipedia. Most of the problems you have with it apply to ‘closed source’ encyclopaedias as well.
For example, you state that ‘Closed-source encyclopaedias don’t have pages locked because of recurrent vandalism and POV-pushing.’ Of course, I’ve never known Britannica’s pages to be *un*locked.
You also point out that Wikipedia is worthless as a reference point for academic use. That’s very true. By the same token, though, there aren’t too many generalist encyclopaedias I could use for any of my papers. Citing any generalist encyclopaedia (specialist encyclopaedias might be different — music majors will always consult Groves, for example) is just a way of telling your prof that you couldn’t be bothered doing any real research. They all have one useful function: they give a good background to a subject and frequently suggest useful reading that the prof mightn’t have suggested.
paolo says on June 20th, 2007 at 7:58 am
About Money, I suggest you to check Ripple
http://ripple.sourceforge.net/
Ripple is an open-source software project for developing and implementing a protocol for an open decentralized payment network. In its extreme form, the Ripple network could be a peer-to-peer distributed social network service with a monetary honor system based on trust that already exists between people in real-world social networks.
xdevnull says on June 20th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
One thing you kind of left out, which makes it anti-thetical to anarchy - standards. Even if they are (preferably) community established standards, standards must be developed and adhered to if open-source can work in any meaningful way. Otherwise my firefox browser wouldn’t function with my linux kernel and gnome desktop. Same holds true for money, education, etc.
Tony Prince says on June 21st, 2007 at 4:18 am
This is a very thoughtful article and a big step in the right direction. At present our societies are based on pyramidal structures, with power and communication mostly flowing in one direction, from the top down. But there are other ways of organizing societies, and the success of the open-source movement, and the worldwide web itself, have shown us that a network model based on cooperation rather than coercion and on the free flow of information can be extremely efficient, even on the largest possible scale. The internet has nodes but no fixed centre, so the overall structure is very flexible and can easily adapt to changing circumstances. A pyramid on the other hand, as in the case of national governments and big corporations, has a rigid structure with a single controlling centre that is highly resistant to change. The pyramid model is powerful, because it’s based on the notion of power in the first place, but it’s neither flexible nor efficient and now, at the beginning of the 21st century, it’s starting to look very dangerous.
It’s interesting that jgasm raises the question of open-source gods, because in fact religion is one area where the open-source principle is already at work. Unlike, say, western Europe in the middle ages, when everybody was obliged to buy their religious operating system (so to speak) from a single, monopolistic church, we now have a wide range of religions to choose from, all freely available, and nobody is obliged to pay for anything unless they reallly want to. This is the case in all democratic countries, and even in many non-democratic ones, and I think we are all better off for it.
There is of course the valid objection mentioned by Ben Clapton that the whole idea may be “great in theory, but often doesn’t work in practice”. But we already know, from the examples cited, that the open-source principle can work in practice as long as enough people are prepared to commit themselves to making it work. The problem is really one of motivation. Structures that are centrally controlled work because they only require a small number of people with enough political or economic power to run them, but a society based on the open-source principle will only work if there are enough people who really believe that cooperation, as opposed to coercion, and free communication, as opposed to a monopoly of information, are values that are vitally important to the survival of the human race and the rest of the planet. Perhaps, then, we need to give serious thought to the ethical values that underlie the open-source movement, and ask ourselves just what those values are and what they imply. If we can do that, a genuinely open-source society will become a practical possibility. William Blake points out in “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell” that “what is now proved [experienced] was once only imagined”. Certainly a society based on open-source principles can be achieved, but perhaps only if we imagine it clearly enough first.
Andreas M. says on July 31st, 2007 at 10:34 am
I have to say that not only the article deserves respect, but also several of the responses.
The open source movement, wikipedia and all the online communities out there should just be the beginning. We see more and more a free information flow and empowerment of individuals to publish their information. The knowledge is power rule does not apply to the web as the one that keeps his knowledge remains invisible.
We are currently working on the open source education line (the thing labelled “schools” at Leo’s blogging) and try to identify ways to leverage open source principles towards educational settings (if you want see: http://www.flosscom.net or http://wiki.ubuntu.com/flosscom). As you might have seen the MIT open courseware model has been picked up already by several universities throughout the globe and projects like OpenLearn from the British Open University releasing part of their content under a creative commons so educators and users could work on it and improve it.
The next thing to come will be the emergence of learning communities and high quality content repositories – yes textbooks might become obsolete. What still is missing is a business model behind. But looking at open source and the service societies it won’t take long to develop them. I expect that universities will soon offer the accreditation of knowledge gained outside the university. I don’t say that this will substitute the education systems as we know them, but complement them and become more and more mainstream. Already for decades these niche markets exist,so it’s not revolutionary. Just add the open source science idea (follow the link from Guy Snir) and you can even go one step beyond. Why should advanced learner waste their time on theory if they could contribute to real world research projects? The philosophy and principles from open source should help us improving other areas of life. Certainly, there are many lessons to be learnt and without doubt a large number of failures to come. But over the past 10 years we also have seen billions of Dollars being burned with all of the eLearning hype and this with remarkably bad results (except for the vendors). So why not spending them on new approaches that seem to be more success promising.