The Old/New Threat to Open Source Adoption
I have been satisfied with the level of acceptance open source products have earned during the last decade. But I fear that its progress may be impeded by the continued confusion between “free” and “open.” This is not a new argument, but the premises have shifted slightly. Basically, open source advocates must constantly remind the public that the YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are NOT open source.
I sat in a meeting last week listening to faculty and staff debate the future of our campus’ learning management system. Our provider has been purchased by Blackboard, which gives us four years to either migrate to the Beast, or find another way. If you know me, you know what my opinion is.
I’ve been pushing Jon Mott’s model: Let’s focus on the core functionality of what the institution must do, while supporting faculty and students’ use of non-campus (“cloud”) tools. This maintains the security over student data and restricted material without sacrificing the advantage of the emerging technologies. As we were discussing how the college IT staff could support such a model, one person spoke up:
Several faculty have started using open source sites, and they’re starting to realize that when the system goes away, they’ll lose their work.
Anyone in open source, or even with a cursory knowledge of its pros and cons would have done a double take. I think my brow furrowed into the ceiling panels. They continued.
When sites like YouTube make changes, or just close-up shop, a lot of the work you’ve put into building your content is just gone.
I usually hold my tongue in meetings, especially when deans or higher-ups are in attendance, but this was one misconception I dearly wanted to nip in the bud. Before the moderator had a chance to call on anyone, I corrected:
Just a correction, if I may? YouTube is NOT open source. It’s free to use, but the very nature of open source would actually mitigate the risks you bring up.
I spoke with the person after the meeting to give them a quick rundown on what open source is, is not, its advantages and disadvantages, and why it was so important they I correct them during the meeting.
Today I received my subcommittee’s report on the issues we’ve researched. My view is well represented in the report, but our subcommittee chair made a similar mistake. She equated cloud computing with the use of open source tools. I sent a polite correction, which was applied to the report.
Most of my involvement in open source has assumed that when the products were good enough, they would break into the mainstream. I felt that the movement had succeeded when campus IT guys installed Firefox on the lab computers. But it appears I missed the next glass ceiling: Overcoming mid-level decision-makers’ misconceptions.