791 Open Source Software and International Outsourcing O Kirk St.Amant Texas Tech University, USA Brian Still Texas Tech University, USA INTRODUCTION The popularity of open source software (OSS) has exploded among consumers and software developers. For example, today, the most popular Web server on the Internet is Apache, an open source product. Additionally, Linux (often considered one of the perfect examples of OSS) is now contesting Microsoft s dominance over the operating system market. OSS flexibility, moreover, has allowed it to become a key international technology that could affect developments in global business practices. Despite these beneficial aspects, there are those who would claim it is difficult to implement and its core developers are undependable hobbyists. The purpose of this paper is to provide the reader with an overview of what OSS is, to present some of the benefits and limitations of using OSS, and to examine how international growth in OSS use could affect future business practices. By understanding these factors, readers will gain a better understanding of it and how OSS can be integrated into their organizational computing activities. BACKGROUND The driving force behind OSS is the Open Source movement, which can best be understood by what it opposes (proprietary software) and also what it supports (open software development). OSS advocates believe in an open exchange of ideas, an open coordination if not merging of different software, and, at the most crucial and basic level, an open access to the source code of software. In fact, Open Source creator Bruce Perens refers to it as a bill of rights for the computer user (Perens, 1999, p.171). Perens helped found the Open Source Initiative (OSI) in 1999, and only those software licenses that adhere to the guidelines of the OSI Open Source definition can use the trademark. OSI also maintains the Open Source definition and its registered trademark, and it campaigns actively for the Open Source movement and strict adherence to its definition. The entire OSI Open Source definition can be viewed online at http://www.opensource.org/docs/ definition.php. Its key tenets, however, can be summarized here: for a software license to be considered Open Source, users must have the right to make and even give away copies of the software for free. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, OSS users must have the right both to view and to repair or modify the source code of the software they are using (Perens, 1999). To appreciate the benefits and the limitations of OSS, one also must understand how it differs from proprietary software. In essence, the distinction has to do with differences in source code the computer programming that tells software how to perform different activities or tasks. The motivation for this difference has to do with profits. Proprietary software companies close access to the source code of their applications, because they consider it intellectual property critical to their business infrastructure. That is, once the programming of a software product is complete, these companies perform one final step, which is to prevent users from being able to see or to access the actual computer coding/programming that allows the software to operate. If any user could change the source code of the software, there eventually could be many different versions of it not easily supported by computers. If the user who purchased the software could change the source code, the user would not Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc., distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI is prohibited.
need to pay the software company to make the change. With unrestricted access to the source code, a user even could develop another version of the software and then distribute it either at a lower cost or for free (Nadan, 2002). According to the OSS model, the profitability of the software itself is not important. This is not to say that some OSS companies do not make money, for many do profit from providing services or support to users. The RedHat company (http:// www.redhat.com), for example, makes a decent profit packaging and distributing Linux to users. While any user can download and install Linux for free, RedHat has convinced many users that by paying a fee to RedHat, they will get a guaranteed, ready-to-go version of Linux that comes with experienced support, such as training, manuals, or customer service (Young, 1999). Additionally, OSS source code is not the intellectual property of one company or one programmer. Rather, it is more like community property that belongs to every user. With barriers removed as to who can access it and who cannot, the thinking behind this key Open Source tenet is that the more individuals who look at and modify the source code, the better that code will become. More bugs will be caught, more enhancements will be added, and the product will improve more quickly, as the experience and talents of a large community of developers is put to work making it better (Raymond, 1999). This approach to software development and distribution has successfully threatened proprietary software s hold over the market in recent years. Although this OSS model seems revolutionary, it is actually the way things are done, according to Alan Cox, in almost all serious grown up industry (Cox, 2003, para. 11). In every field, consumers can go elsewhere if vendors are not supportive. In the auto industry, for example, individuals can choose the car they want from the dealer they want; they can look for the best deal, and they can even save money by fixing the car themselves (Cox, 2003). Because of OSS, software consumers now have that same sort of power. Instead of just one choice, one kind of license, and one price, consumers now have a choice of brand names, a chance to test multiple products for the right fit and buy, and, ultimately, the right to tinker with the software s source code on their own to make it work for their needs (Cox, 2003). Just as Open Source wants to contribute to the public good, it also wants to put a flexible, more practical face on free software. Faced with losing the war for the hearts and minds of software users, the Open Source movement sacrifices the religious zeal of copyleft (preventing makers or modifiers of OSS from claiming ownership of and control over that programming) for a software certifying system that enables more software companies to license their work as Open Source (i.e., leaving the source code of their applications available and modifiable). In other words, OSI does not see itself in an antagonistic relationship with the software industry. Rather, commercial software [is] an ally to help spread the use of Open Source licensing (Nadan, 2002, The free/open source movement, para. 5). To facilitate this relationship, OSI argues that business has much to gain from OSS. Business can, for example, outsource work to OSS developers and thus save money on in-house development. Additionally, a small business quickly can become the next Linux by interesting OSS developers in a project it has begun (Nadan, 2002). Almost overnight, scores of developers around the world could be working for free to make the project a reality. Open Source, therefore, is about the true believers in free software trying to convince individuals in business to be believers, too. Why do they want business to use OSS? Because innovation, research, and development of software, once found primarily at big universities, is now carried out primarily in business. If business adopts OSS, its popularity not only will increase, but its quality will improve as more dollars and developers become dedicated to improving it. The question then becomes, How does one know if OSS is the right choice for his or her organization? To make an informed decision related to OSS, one needs to understand the benefits and the limitations of such programming. MAIN FOCUS OF THE ARTICLE Despite the inroads OSS has made in operating systems and Web servers, many businesspersons are still standoffish toward it. Others, having heard positive and negatives stories about OSS, are curious about what it can really do in comparison to proprietary software. By examining the strengths 792
and weaknesses of OSS and comparing it to proprietary software, one can establish the knowledge base needed to determine the specific situations where implementing OSS is the right decision. OSS Strengths Free Access to Source Code: Organizations, especially those with skilled developers, can take advantage of free access to source code. OSS code is always available for modification, enabling developers to tinker with it to make it better for all users or just to meet their own needs or those of their organizations. Costs: A number of countries struggling economically, such as Taiwan and Brazil, have adopted OSS to save money (Liu, 2003). Many businesses faced with decreasing IT operating budgets but increasing software maintenance and licensing fees also have made the move toward OSS. Although there are indirect costs incurred using OSS, such as staff salary and training, proprietary software has these same costs. The fact that OSS starts free is a big plus in its favor. Rapid Release Rate: In the proprietary software model, software is never released until it is ready. If changes need to be made after the product is released, these alterations are not made and deployed as soon as possible. Rather, they are held back until the related company can be sure that all the bugs are fixed. OSS, however, works differently. As Raymond (1999) points out, updates to OSS are released early and often, taking advantage of the large developer community working on the OSS to test, debug, and develop enhancements (p. 39). All of this is done at the same time, and releases are sometimes done daily, not every six months, so the work is efficient, and the improvement to the software is rapid. Flexibility: Open access to the source code gives users flexibility because they can modify the software to meet their needs. The existence of OSS also gives users flexibility simply because they have a choice that might not have existed before. They do not have to use proprietary software if there is OSS that works just as well. OSS provides further flexibility for those users that need to move to a new system. Rather than being stuck with nonportable code and forced to deal with whatever bugs that come along with the software, they can use OSS that is openly specified [and] interchangeable (Brase, 2003, vendor flexibility, para. 1). Reliability: Because OSS is peer-reviewed, and modifications are released quickly, problems with the software are caught and corrected at a rate countless times faster than that offered by proprietary software. It is not an industry secret that Linux, for example, is much more reliable than Windows. Exposed to the prying eyes of literally thousands of developers, Linux and other OSS are constantly being tested and tweaked to be made more crash proof. This tweaking also extends the life of the software, something which cannot be done with proprietary software unless users are willing to pay for upgrades. Many organizations have found themselves sitting on dated software and facing an expensive relicensing fee to get the new version. OSS can be refitted by the organization, if it is not already tweaked by the community of developers working on it. The software could be abandoned, and this has occurred before with OSS. But it has happened as well with proprietary software. Developer Community: In the end, the developer community is the greatest strength of OSS and one that proprietary software companies cannot match. Not all developers working on any given OSS project actually write code. But literally thousands upon thousands working on larger projects test, debug, and provide constant feedback to maintain the quality of the OSS. They are not forced to do it, but they contribute because they are stimulated by the challenge and empowered by the opportunity to help build and improve software that provides users, including themselves, with a high quality alternative to proprietary software. OSS Weaknesses Critics of OSS point out a number of deficiencies that make OSS too risky of a proposition to use in any sort of serious enterprise. 793 O
Loosely Organized Community of Hhobbyists: It is a very real possibility that an OSS project could lose its support base of developers, should they get bored and move on to other projects. Although many that work on OSS are paid programmers and IT professionals, they often work on OSS outside of normal business hours. Many in business feel that professional developers working for companies that care about the bottom line in a competitive software market always will produce better software. They will stick around to support it, and the company will put its name on the line and stand behind it. In truth, the numbers of developers getting paid to work on OSS is increasing, and nearly one-third is paid for their work. In 2001, IBM, now a strong supporter of OSS, had around 1,500 of its developers working on just one OSS application Linux (Goth, 2001). Forking Source Code: Source code is said to fork when another group of developers creates a derivative version of the source code that is separate, if not incompatible, with the current road the source code s development is following. The result is source code that takes a different fork in the road. Because anyone can access and modify OSS source code, forking has always been a danger that has been realized on occasions. The wide variety of operating systems that now exists, based on the BSD operating system, such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, serves as one example (DiBona, Ockman & Stone, 1999). Raymond (1999) argues that it is a taboo of the Open Source culture to fork projects, and in only special circumstances does it happen. Linux has not really forked, despite so many developers working on it. Carolyn Kenwood (2001) attributes this to its accepted leadership structure, open membership and long-term contribution potential (p. xiv). The GPL license, which Linux uses, is also a major deterrent to forking because there is no financial incentive to break off, since the forked code would have to be freely available under the terms of the license. Overall, however, forking is a legitimate potential weakness for OSS. Lack of Technical Support: In CIO magazine s 2002 survey of IT executives, 52 percent said a lack of vendor support was open source s primary weakness (Koch, 2003, p. 55). Very rarely is software ever installed without some kind of hitch. In smaller organizations, the staff s depth of knowledge may not go deep enough to insure that support for the software can be taken care of internally. Because so many of the systems and applications that organizations run these days operate in hybrid environments where different tools run together on different platforms, technical support is crucial. Proprietary companies argue that Open Source cannot provide the technical support business expects and needs. There is no central help desk, no 1-800 number, no gold or silver levels of support that organizations can rely on for assistance. Recognizing that OSS must mirror at least the traditional technical support structure of proprietary models to address this perceived weakness, a number of major vendors such as Dell, HP, IBM, Oracle and Sun are beginning to support OSS (Koch, 2003, p. 55). Lack of Suitable Business Applications: Literally hundreds, if not thousands, of OSS applications can be downloaded for free off the Internet from sites like the Open Source Directory (http://www.osdir.com) or SourceForge (http://www.sourceforge.net). But a fair knock against OSS in the business world is that, aside from Linux and a few others, most OSS lacks the quality, maturity, or popularity to make business want to switch from the proprietary products it currently uses. Some think this is because building a word processor just is not sexy enough for OSS developers (Moody, 1998). While it may be changing, the nature of OSS is that those projects that developers choose to participate in are the ones that interest them, not necessarily those that others want done. If more companies begin to pay their developers to work on OSS, this situation may change. For now, however, OSS lacks the killer app for the desktop that matches Linux s impact on operating systems or Apache s on Web servers. OpenOffice, mentioned earlier, is an OSS alternative to Windows Office, but its user interface lacks 794
the sophistication and ease-of-use of Office, and so business has been slow to warm up to it. Until it or another OSS desktop application comes along that can seriously challenge Windows lock on the desktop, those in decisionmaking positions will still not see OSS as a legitimate alternative to proprietary software (Goth, 2001, p. 105). FUTURE TRENDS While OSS might seem a bit of a novelty at this point in history, that perception is poised to change and to change rapidly in response to international business opportunities. The international use of proprietary software has long been plagued by two factors: cost and copyright. From a cost perspective, the forprofit nature of proprietary software has made it unavailable to large segments of the world s population. This situation is particularly the case in developing nations where high purchase prices often are associated with such materials. This cost factor not only restricts the number of prospective overseas consumers, but it also limits the scope of the viable international labor pool companies can tap. The situation works as follows: Many developing nations possess a highly-skilled, well-trained workforce whose members can perform a variety of specialized technical tasks for a fraction of what it would cost in an industrialized nation. The savings that companies could incur through the use of such workers has prompted many organizations to adopt the practice of international outsourcing, a process in which technical work is sent to workers in developing nations. As a result, many companies have adopted such practices, and the degree of knowledge work that is expected to be outsourced in the near future is impressive. For such outsourcing practices to work, employees in developing nations must have access to: the technologies needed to communicate with the overseas client offering such work; and the tools required to perform essential production tasks or services. In both cases, this means software. That is, since much of this outsourcing work is conducted via online media, workers in developing nations need to have certain online communication software if they are to actually do work for clients in industrialized nations. Additionally, much of this work requires employees to use different digital tools (i.e., software packages) to perform essential tasks or develop desired products. The costs associated with proprietary software, however, mean that organizations often cannot take advantage of the full potential of this overseas labor force, for these prospective employees simply cannot afford the tools needed to engage in such activities. This limited access to software also affects the consumer base that organizations can tap into in developing nations. In instances where the requisite software is available (e.g., India and China), outsourcing work (and outside money) moves into these counties and contributes to an economic boom. As a result, the middle classes of these nations begin to expand, and the members of this class increasingly have the financial power to purchase products sold by international technology companies. China, for example, has emerged as one off the world s largest markets for cellular telephones with some 42 million new mobile phone accounts opening in the year 2000 (China s economic power, 2001). Moreover, China s import of high-tech goods from the U.S. has risen from $970 million USD in 1992 to almost $4.6 billion USD in 2000 (Clifford & Roberts, 2001). Similarly, outsourcing has allowed India s growing middle class to amass aggregate purchasing power of some $420 billion USD (Malik, 2004). Thus, the more outsourcing work that can move into a developing nation, the more likely and the more rapidly that nation can become a market for various products. One way to take advantage of this situation would be for companies to provide prospective international workers with access to free or inexpensive software products that would allow them to participate in outsourcing activities. Such an approach, however, would contribute to the second major software problem copyright violation. In many developing nations, copyright laws are often weak (if not non-existent), or governments show little interest in enforcing them. As a result, many developing nations have developed black market businesses that sell pirated versions of software and other electronic goods for very low prices. Such O 795
piracy reduces consumer desire to purchase legitimate and more costly versions of the same product, and thus affects a company s profit margins within that nation. Further complicating this problem is the fact that it is often difficult for companies to track down who is or was producing pirated versions of their products. Thus, while the distribution of cheap or free digital materials can help contribute to outsourcing activities, that same strategy can undermine an organization s ability to sell its products abroad. Open source software, however, can offer a solution to this situation. Since it is free to use, OSS can provide individuals in developing nations with affordable materials that allow them to work within outsourcing relationships. Moreover, the flexibility allowed by OSS means that outsourcing workers could modify the software they use to perform a wide variety of tasks and reduce the need for buying different programs in order to work on different projects. As the software itself is produced by the outsourcing employee and not the client, concerns related to copyright and proprietary materials no longer need to be stumbling blocks to outsourcing relationships. Thus, it is perhaps no surprise that the use of OSS is growing rapidly in many of the world s developing nations (Open Source s Local Heroes, 2003). This increased use of Open Source could contribute to two key developments related to overseas markets. First, it could increase the number of individuals able to work in outsourcing relationships, and thus increase the purchasing power of the related nation. Second, OSS could lead to the development of media that would allow poorer individuals to access the Internet or the World Wide Web and become more connected to the global economy. In many developing nations, the cost of online access has meant that a relatively few individuals can use online media. Yet, as a whole, the aggregate of the world s poorer populations constitutes a powerful market companies can tap. The buying power of Rio de Janeiro s poorest residents, for example, is estimated to be some $1.2 billion (Beyond the Digital Divide, 2004). Based on economies of scale, poorer consumers in developing nations could constitute an important future market; all organizations need is a mechanism for interacting with these consumers. Many businesses see online media as an important conduit for accessing these overseas markets. It is, perhaps, for this reason that certain companies have started developing online communication technologies that could provide the less well off citizens of the world with affordable online access (Beyond the Digital Divide, 2004; Kalia, 2001). They also have begun developing inexpensive hubs for online access in nations such as India, Ghana, Brazil, and South Africa (Beyond the Digital Divide, 2004). Should such activities prove profitable, then other organizations likely will follow this lead and try to move into these markets. Thus, the international growth in OSS use has great prospects to offer a variety of organizations. The problem with making these business situations a reality has to do with compatibility. That is, if businesses use proprietary software to create materials that are then sent to outsourced employees who work with OSS, can those products be used? Conversely, could the material produced by outsource workers be used by the client company or even by the consumers to which those materials will be marketed? Further, as OSS allows individuals to personalize the software they use, each overseas employee, in theory, could be working with a different program. Companies that then collect components created by numerous outsourcing workers thus could find the task of assembling the desired final product tedious, if not impossible. This degree of individualization also could mean that prospective consumers in developing nations use a variety of programs to access online materials, a factor that could make the task of mass marketing in these regions highly difficult. For these reasons, future outsourcing and international marketing operations likely will require protocols and systems of standards, if individuals wish to maximize the potential of both situations. Fortunately, OSS use in developing nations is still relatively limited, so organizations do have time to work on viable protocols and standards now, at a time when the adoption of such standards would be relatively easy. Thus, an understanding of OSS no longer can be viewed as a novelty or an interesting alternative; instead, it needs to be seen as a requirement for organizational success in the future. By understanding the benefits and limitations of OSS, 796
individuals can make informed decisions about how to establish international protocols for working with OSS. CONCLUSION New technologies bring with them new choices. While Open Source software has existed for some time, it is still viewed as new by many organizations. Recent international business developments, however, indicate that the importance of OSS will grow markedly in the future. To prepare for such growth, individuals need to understand what OSS is, the benefits it has to offer, and the limitations that affect its use. By expanding their knowledge of OSS, employees and managers can better prepare themselves for the workplaces of the future. REFERENCES Beyond the digital divide. (2004, March 13). The Economist: Technology Quarterly Supplement, 8. Brase, R. (2003, March 19). Open source makes business sense. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/os/story/ 0,2000048630,20272976,00.htm China s economic power. (2001, March 10). The Economist, 23-25. Clifford, M., & Roberts, D. (2001, April 16). China: Coping with its new power. BusinessWeek, 28-34. Cox, A. (2003). The risks of closed source computing. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from http:// www.osopinion.com/opinions/alancox/ AlanCox1.html DiBona, C., Ockman, S., & Stone, M. (1999). Introduction. In C. DiBona, S. Ockman, & M. Stone (Eds.), Open sources: Voices of the open source revolution (pp. 1-17). Sebastopol, CA: O Reilly & Associates, Inc. Goth, G. (2001). The open market woos open source. IEEE Software, 18(2), 104-107. Kalia, K. (2001, July/August). Bridging global digital divides. Silicon Alley Reporter, 52-54. Kenwood, C.A. (2001). A business case study of open source software. Bedford, MA: The MITRE Corporation. Koch, C. (2003). Open source Your open source plan. CIO, 16(11), 52-59. Liu, E. (2002, June 10). Governments embrace open source. Retrieved May 27, 2003, from http:// www.osopinion.com Malik, R. (2004, July). The new land of opportunity. Business 2.0, 72-79. Moody, G. (1998). The wild bunch. New Scientist, 160(2164), 42-46. Nadan, C.H. (2002, Spring). Open source licensing: Virus or virtue? [electronic vversion]. Texas Intellectual Property Law, 10(3), 349-377. Retrieved July 1, 2003, from http://firstsearch.oclc.org/ FSIP?sici=1068-1000%28200221 %2910%3A3 %3C349%3AOSLVOV%3E&dbname=Wilson SelectPlus_FT Open source s local heroes. (2003, December 6). The Economist: Technology Quarterly Supplement, 3-5. Perens, B. (1999). The open source definition. In C. DiBona, S. Ockman, & M. Stone (Eds.), Open sources: Voices of the open source revolution (pp. 171-188). Sebastopol, CA: O Reilly & Associates, Inc. Raymond, E.S. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O Reilly & Associates, Inc. KEY TERMS Copyleft: A term coined by Richard Stallman, leader of the free software movement and creator of the General Public License, or GPL. The key tenet of the GPL, which copyleft describes, is that software licensed under it can be freely copied, distributed, and modified. Hence, this software is copyleft, or the opposite of copyright. It insures that there are no protections or restrictions when copyright insures the opposite. O 797
Forking: Source code is said to fork when another group of developers create a derivative version of the source code that is separate, if not incompatible, with the current road the source code s development is following. The result is source code that takes a different fork in the road. International Outsourcing: A production model in which online media are used to send work to employees located in a nation (generally, a developing nation) Open Source Software: In general, software available to the general public to use or modify free of charge is considered open. It is also considered open source because it is software that is typically created in a collaborative environment in which developers contribute and share their programming openly with others. Proprietary Software: Software, including the source code, that is privately owned and controlled. Source Code: Programmers write software in source code, which are instructions for the computer to tell it how to use the software. But computers need a machine language to understand, so the source code of the software must be compiled into an understandable object code that computers can use to carry out the software instructions or source code. Without source code, a software s instructions or functionality cannot be modified. Source code that can be accessed by the general public is considered open (open source software). If it cannot be accessed, it is considered closed (proprietary software). 798