Those converted to freely sourced software in the last 10 years rank among Roger’s (1983) early adopters. If Roger’s (1983) model holds true for the open source and free software movements, we should expect a rapid upswing in adoption as we enter the early majority to late majority adoption phases. How quickly this will happen can be more readily explained through the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) which looks at how perceptions about user friendliness and usefulness of a technology affect adoption over time (Davis, 1989). Another factor that will affect acceptance is simple awareness and knowledge of open source and free software. Potter (2000) cites some concerns people held with regard to freely sourced applications that tie in with Davis’s (1989) TAM:
- product concerns: product viability and technical issues such as security, scalability, and technical support;
- contractual concerns: a purchase contract being signed with a company that did not create the product purchased; minimization of copyright for programmers;
- product support concerns: discomfort of software companies with providing warranties for products they did not create; short track records and unknown staying power of small new software companies with regard to the provision of long-term product support;
- product standardization concerns: due to the collaborative nature of source code, functionality, enhancements, and application alterations can be added at will and marketed as a different or newer versions of the program so, “The multiplicity of products and versions can result in incompatible systems and inconsistent products”.
While Potter’s (2000) concern about application alterations or proliferation of versions can seem worrisome, once a freely sourced program is running on your system, under your administration, only the people you (or your system administrators) designate have the permission to access and modify the source code. If you want to switch to a newer version, you are free to do so—but are not compelled to do so. No one else will be able to tinker with the code you’ve installed on your hardware unless given such permission and no one can force you to upgrade through contractual or licensing obligations. This does not mean that an unscrupulous programmer could not hide something in the source code to allow him or her to go in and modify the program without your knowledge, but that is highly unlikely if you’ve selected a reputable program with robust user and programmer communities. In these communities, people constantly scrutinize the code. Such issues would be quickly discovered and the program panned in reviews, blogs, or other formats.
Another barrier to adoption can be the perceived portability of data from existing software to a freely sourced option. Often many of the difficulties in migrating an instructor or institution’s data to a new platform are attributed to the software, and at one time that was true. In the past, proprietary commercial programs ensured portability of content between their versions, with little reference to others. For example, with regard to learning platforms, many institutions developed courses, media, or data without reference to design documents or data tagging, perhaps never envisioning they would contemplate migration to a different software provider. A course designed by one instructor was often significantly different in structure from that designed by another. Materials showed little consistency in design or layout.12 Since the standards movement, the issues of portability and interoperability have become central considerations when selecting software. Consequently, consistent course design and layout have gained importance in the educational environment. More frequently, instructors or other developers are being trained in ways to build standards compliant courses. It’s far easier to build a software program to move content to a new environment when the parts are common, properly identified, and in the similar locations. Even if you don’t have the technological expertise within your institution to build the necessary migration software, with standard compliance, good design and foresight at the outset, that process can be outsourced for a reasonable price.
These are not the only obstacles to free and open software—other threats loom. Recently there have been movements afoot to effectively and legally prohibit reverse engineering of software. Potter (2000) discusses recent drafts of the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) saying:
Currently, reverse engineering is legal for reasons of “interoperability” between computer systems. Prohibiting reverse engineering inhibits the development of open source [and free software] because for … [freely sourced software] products to be of any value, they must be compatible with other computer applications. The way to establish compatibility is to reverse engineer the other developer’s code … advocates are concerned that the UCITA will allow proprietary developers to “establish secret file formats and protocols, which there would be no lawful way for [programmers] to figure out”.
Furthermore Potter (2000), identified problems with legal drafts of the UCITA that would entrench implied warranties into software licences. Traditionally, freely sourced software does not provide warranties unless expressly specified by an individual or company. This has been a benefit as it lowers the risk of lawsuits. Consequently, this creates low entry barriers to new software designers and companies. With no prerequisites of insurance or legal representation to limit liability, anyone and everyone can contribute to programming the software. Potter (2000) states, “Placing the risk of litigation on the open source [or free software] developer may in turn increase the price of … products. Another negative consequence is the possible deterrence of programmers from contributing useful code”.
Since the end of Unix market control, another major barrier to freely sourced software has been Microsoft domination. C. DiBona et al. (1992) write, “The question really is not whether venture capital funding will flow to Open Source, but why the flow has only begun to trickle in that direction … Why did it take so long to catch on?” (p. 10). They go on to answer this question:
Taking a look at the computing landscape, you’ve got a situation where a very large company with very deep pockets controls the lion’s share of the commercial market. In Silicon Valley, hopeful applications vendors looking for backing from the angel and venture capital community learn very quickly that if they position themselves against Microsoft, they will not get funded. Every startup either has to play Microsoft’s game or not play at all. (C. DiBona et al., 1992, p. 10)
According to DiBona et al. (1992), programmers forced to play the Microsoft game are locked into the goal of assuring the proprietary nature of their work—“the goal of making the program completely dependent on Microsoft libraries … making any Windows native program very difficult to port to other operating systems” (p. 10). The author’s also point out that one of the main reasons Microsoft has not dominated the Internet has been the Net’s dedication to “a powerful collection of open standards maintained on the merit of individual participation, not the power of a corporate wallet” (C. DiBona et al., 1992, p. 10). The authors point out, that just like the Internet, free and open source developers “compete based on open standards and shared code” and generally work towards compatibility (C. DiBona et al., 1992, p. 10). Recently, it appears that the freely sourced movements have affected even Microsoft’s strategies. In September 2006, Microsoft promised “not to enforce patents for technology in Web services specifications, which are used in connecting applications in serviceoriented architectures and other forms of standardsbased distributed computing” (Gonsalves, 2006). Gonsalves (2006 ) goes on to say that this was done in an effort by Microsoft “[to] help promote widespread adoption of Web services, which play an important part in how Microsoft ties its software to its own products and other applications” by targeting “developers and customers working with commercial or open-source [/free] software.”
While community building and interpersonal relations have been a significant factor in the success of freely sourced software, other aspects help propel its increasing acceptance. Potter (2000) said:
Economically, open source [/free software] is a more efficient way to allocate the benefits of copyright to society. Because current software protection law benefits relatively few developers, there is a need for change. Open source [/free software] exhibits valid, economical, and marketable alternatives to proprietary software development and distribution.
These reasons listed by Potter (2000) make open source and free software an increasingly popular choice. For example, Apache server, an open source application with over 11 years in the industry, is now used by more than 62 percent of the top developers in the server industry. In comparison, Microsoft holds less than half of the market share at roughly 30 percent (Netcraft, Ltd., 2006). Apache’s market share increased from its February 2002 estimate at just over 58 percent (Netcraft, Ltd., 2002). In addition, interest in other open source and free software is growing. A March 2005 article, “Estimating the Number of Linux Users (or: why we think we’re 29 million)” did a review of Internet hits in February 2005 as recorded by Teoma and Google (combined). The results are summarized in Table 8.1, Open Source vs. Windows Interest by Internet Hits.
| Operating System |
Hits |
| Linux + linspire |
269,000,000 |
| Solaris |
27, 000,000 |
| *BSD |
55, 000,000 |
| Total Freely Sourced |
351,000,000 |
| Win3.1/95/98/2000/ME |
88, 000,000 |
| Win2003/Server |
19, 000,000 |
| WinXP |
33, 000,000 |
| WinNT |
33, 000,000 |
| WinLonghorn |
33, 000,000 |
| Total Windows |
206,000,000 |
Clearly there is evidence of significant interest in open source and free software—if only measured at a shallow level by operating system interest or website hits.
According to Fima Katz, CEO of Exadel, “The real problem is widespread unfamiliarity and lack of expertise with open source [and free software] across all levels of the organization” (V world New Media [Designs4nuke.com], February 7, 2006). A survey by Exadel conducted at the 2005 Gartner Open Source Summit found that “more than half (55%) of survey respondents reported that their organizations currently have limited internal knowledge of open source[/free software]” (as cited in V world New Media [Designs4nuke.com], February 7, 2006). Moreover, the February 23, 2005 Gartner report, “Positions 2005: Open-Source Solutions Will Restructure the Software Industry,” found that “40 percent of respondents claimed that their organization’s lack of knowledge about open source [/free software] as the top vulnerability to adoption” (as cited in V World New Media [Designs4nuke.com], February 7, 2006).
Despite the various barriers, current trends indicate that freely sourced software will flourish, as witness the proliferation of Apache servers, GNU/Linux operating systems, as well as ATutor, Sakai, and Moodle sites, To ensure this, Potter (2000) offers the following suggestions: formation of a non-profit and/or governmental body to certify interoperability and portability of freely sourced software; using freely sourced software code as a legal remedy for monopoly, anti-trust, and copyright suits; as well as government endorsement of freely sourced software through its own policies, adoption, and use.
The question then is: when, if ever, is it the right time for you to migrate to freely sourced software? Only a comprehensive contextual assessment of your situation, as well as increasing your knowledge of free software and open source, can help you make that decision. The next sections offer a possible methodology to increase your knowledge, and move from initial considerations of freely sourced options to implementing pilot projects and widespread organizational adoption.
