Open-source, Proprietary, Proletariat, Bourgeoisie

Since the beginning of computers, and probably far before then as well in just a different form, this question has existed: should technology (and specifically software) be free?  Free software is considered opensource.  Open Source Initiative, a non-profit aiming to "educate and advocate the benefits of open source software, defines open source software with a ten point definition that basically says that 1. no part of the software can be bought or sold, 2. the source code must be provided, and 3. everyone must be allowed access to the software.  

There are many advocates of open source software, there are, however also many who advocate a proprietary approach to software design. The difference is that when a company creates proprietary or closed source software, they are likely going to sell that software and not allow people to see how the program was written.  

There are some areas where very little debate exists about which approach to software design is better.  For example, when creating video games, almost everyone would agree that Proprietary software is better.  Although I do love me some QWOP and some Dolphin Olympics, the fact is that open source games are inherently going to be low budget games that will not be able to compete with the Call of Dutys and Halos of the world.  Proprietary games sell for profit and profit is incentive to spend the money needed to make a good game. There are however markets where a more open source approach is much better.

There is of course the DIY small market where just about everything is open source.  Take a look at the Hack-a-Day blog and you will find thousands of open source projects.  Among these are of course things like remote controlled kites that generate power, and self-driving cars, but there are also a lot of 3D printing projects, home automation and professional lighting designs.  Professionals are able to rely on the developments of open source and crowd source projects to stay innovative in the work force.

The Open Source Initiative would not be satisfied with the amount of open source software that exists.  They would rather have more people using Linux (a completely open source operating system), and more companies providing source code for their programs.  To me this feels like a different debate made many years ago for political reasons and not technological.

Marx thought that capitalism would bring some people up and push all others down.  He though that the Proletariat class would eventually decide that they are not willing to be pushed down and they would revolt against the higher class and bring everyone together at a single class.  I wonder, can a Marxist lens be used to view the debate in technology of open vs proprietary software.

One one side we have the big companies like Apple and Nintendo that purposefully make their products difficult to use with any other products besides Apple or Nintendo approved products.  And then on the other side, there is a whole group of people who spend a lot of time figuring out how to use Apple products in ways that Apple hasn't approved of (check out this article on Jailbreaking and Cydia).  These "hackers" would like to see apple give their entire IOS source code away so that they could more easily make the changes that they want.  They don't have the luxury however and many of the iPhone jailbreak developers (iPhone hackers) are highly creative in their methods.  It seems that there is a constant battle between Apple and these hackers as every new update makes the old way of jailbreaking phones no longer work.

So is there a future where big companies do not have to fight to keep their software protected?  Where they allow all of there software to be shared freely? And if so, is this a world we would want to live in?  Imagine if you could easily customize the entire look and feel of your iPhone with ease?  If you could run android on your iPhone or even run Windows.  If you could play all of your favorite shows (a different argument but not too different).

There is one big problem with this world, no one makes any money.  Yes, there already is plenty of amazing innovation happening for solely open source projects, projects where the makers will not make any money.  But think about some guy who makes great progress in 3D printing and makes all of his work open source.  Could he really have done it without the prospect of money with technology?  Would he have gone to school for the purpose of learning engineering if there was no money to be made in that field? For that matter, would the school even provide strong engineering courses if engineer grads weren't going to make money and give back to the school in the future and add to the rep of the school?

Money makes the world go around.  Karl Marx cannot be directly compared to the Open Source Initiative but the proprietary software developers can be directly compared to the capitalist world that Marx describes.  A Marxist would likely claim that the rise of the Proletariat class has not yet come (because the Proletariat do not feel oppressed enough yet) but I feel that it is simply impossible to occur in the world of technology.  Software developers need the prospect of money.  The prospect of money will not necessarily make them more innovative, great innovation can come from croud sourcing, it can however open up more resources.  These resources may be great designers, or suits that track human motion, or  powerful computers to program on.  Without the prospect of money, even the most innovative software would only be so powerful.

The Future; Are We There Yet?

I love reading old science fiction books and watching old science fiction movies.  Part of the reason why I love these stories is because if they have survived the test of time they contain themes that still resonate today.  Themes like empathy for your enemy from Ender's Game, or the danger of creating machines that we don't understand from 2001: A Space Odyssey, or the morals of war from Catch-22, or the way George Orwell explores freedom in 1984.  There is a whole other reason that I enjoy these stories though; I love to asses whether the technologies that excited readers when these books and movies were made, are the same technologies that we are living with today. We may not be quite there yet, but we sure are getting close.

In Star Trek, La Forge is often seen on what essentially is an iPad.  Some Trekkies might point out La Forge's Visor as a more impressive feat of technology (born blind, he can see using the Visor) and we are not quite there yet, however scientists have already found a chemical that has proven to cure blindness in mice.

Our military technology is at a technological high point. We do not yet however have the handheld laser guns that we see in Star Wars or the nuclear blasters from The Foundation.  The US Navy is planning to integrate "Direct Energy Weapons"(essentially laser guns) into their ships in the next two years.

George Orwell impresses his readers with a device that turns speaking into writing.  Two words: Dragon Dictation.  And if it is more impressive for the computer to understand and speak back and perform commands, I don't need to look any farther than Siri which I carry with me everywhere I go.  Orwell also speaks about a strip in every house that monitors video and sound and sends it back to some central viewing station where people can be tracked.  Thankfully we don't have this but if we wanted to, it would not be even considered technologically impressive to do so.  And as far as monitoring these videos, we would not need large amounts of humans (it is not actually clear in the book how these videos are monitored), we have technology that can monitor objects in a video and could for example assess by how much movement is happening or the vicinity of two faces (which would have been helpful to accomplish its goal in that book)

We can communicate with people on the other side of the world instantly.  We have access to video footage of the whole world through satellite imagery.  Having access to a 3D printer, I could go on Google Sketchup for free and print out any physical object I want, limited only by my imagination and digital design skills. I feel that we must be living in the technological world that so many writers have imagined.  Even that theme of 2001: A Space Odyssey is becoming more and more relevant; think about how reliant so many people become on GPS.

There is one technology however that we have not invented, and until we get there, there are many stories that will never reach the level of possibility: we don't have space ships that can navigate space easily and go into warp speed.  Until we have this, we will not have humans involved in the type of galactic warfare imagined in Star Wars, and we will not have Hari Seldon counteracting the break up of the Galactic Empire like we see in Isaac Asimov's Foundation, and there will be no Enterprise to "boldly go where no man has ever gone before."  Fortunately there is still hope for the arrival of some alien ship to earth so that the great adventures of Arthur Dent could indeed materialize.