Free/Libre and Open-Source Software

In a world where so much of the economy is based on private ownership, the rise of free/libre, opensource software (FLOSS) as a central part of the digital economy represents a striking act of resistance. At the core of FLOSS is the belief that people should control the technology they build and use, and that technology is a commons that works better when shared. The underlying code must be “open source”—meaning that anyone can access, examine, and verify it. For example, when developers claim a piece of software is secure or does not surveil its users, others can inspect the code and come to their own conclusions. FLOSS is also typically available free of cost, so it opens doors for communities that cannot afford to pay for expensive corporate software.

With FLOSS, users can “fork” the code—copying it and creating their own tools out of it. Some licenses, particularly those that go under the banner of “free software,” require that all adaptations of the code be shared under the same kind of license. The result is a non-proprietary digital commons—a pool of interrelated tools that no single company or person can claim exclusive ownership over and in which no single entity can constrain innovation by limiting access to the software’s code. An example of how this works is that, while Microsoft and Apple tightly control the releases of their operating systems, there are hundreds of free GNU/Linux “distributions,” customized to various user preferences and needs through diverse FLOSS communities. The competitive influence of FLOSS also helps to drive down the price of proprietary software. In Latin America, where FLOSS is widely used, a legitimate, licensed copy of Microsoft Office only costs $10, down from hundreds of dollars previously. Further, activist-led cooperatives (like MayFirst.coop) and collectives (like Riseup.net) can use FLOSS tools to provide services to movement groups without relying on corporate services.

Proprietary software generates profit not only through sales and subscriptions but through controlling user behavior and extracting user data. For example, while Facebook may be free to use, its terms of service allow it to use or monetize any content a user generates on its website without compensation or consent. Uber profits from the labor of drivers who have no way of knowing how the underlying algorithms that calculate payment for that labor actually work. In contrast, FLOSS projects disclose their algorithms and data collection practices, making companies that build products using FLOSS much less likely to engage in questionable business models. Although FLOSS began largely among hobbyists working during unpaid time, developers can increasingly earn income from the work they do, including by providing technical support, customization, and computing power to the people who use their software. They may also receive income from the crowdfunding, grants, or investment that are given to a project in good faith before it begins. With crowdfunding, people are often happy to lend their support when project developers can clearly explain a compelling vision of meeting a community need. This means that crowdfunded projects are more likely to be designed to meet community needs from start to finish. Grant funding works well for projects that serve the public interest. Increasingly, software companies are also paying their employees to contribute to FLOSS projects that their products rely on.

Still, many FLOSS projects experience challenges with sustainability over the long term. Although the FLOSS movement is well established, corporations undermine FLOSS projects in many ways, such as by encouraging features and improvements that suit their own needs and preventing efforts that could compete with their proprietary products. In some cases, such as Google’s Linux-based Android operating system, FLOSS tools have been used to enable widespread corporate surveillance. There are also frequent legal challenges to FLOSS; most often, this occurs when proprietary software uses FLOSS components and violates the license when they charge people for that software. Finally, relying on corporate hiring practices and hobbyists with free time means that FLOSS projects have struggled to attract contributors with diverse backgrounds, identities, and income levels. Keeping the commons truly shared and accessible requires constant vigilance and intentional effort.

As corporations increasingly use FLOSS software in products for clients engaged in surveillance, policing, and weapons development, many FLOSS contributors are organizing to demand higher ethical standards. The Ethical Source Movement seeks to build on the achievements of FLOSS by requiring users to adhere to international labor and human-rights standards. Others feel that such restrictions would ultimately harm the software commons by adding overly complex constraints.

Given its subversive ethos with respect to the dominant capitalist logics of privatization and profiteering, it is easy to mistake FLOSS for a small or marginal movement within the software world. But more than 90 percent of the software that runs the internet is FLOSS. Much of this software is well-known and widely used, like the Firefox web browser, the Android mobile operating system, and GNU/Linux, which itself has hundreds of different spinoffs. The power of a digital commons has become clear. Increasingly, the struggle underway is about whether FLOSS will ultimately serve ordinary users or corporate interests seeking to co-opt it.

FLOSS has many layers. It is a legal definition that challenges copyright. It is a method of open, transparent, and collaborative innovation. Most importantly, it is a culture for creating trustworthy software that respects its users and contributes to a digital commons for all.