Murphy's Law: Open-Source Should Go Unrewarded

Posted 09/02/2009 at 1:30pm | by David Murphy

12

Comments

Print

Why do open-source programs win awards? Or, rather, what is it about open-source that makes us so prone to dishing out accolades--as if the very nature of a program being open-source somehow makes it indistinguishable from any other common application you can use.

And, for that matter, why do we keep giving the same programs the same awards?

I'm talking, of course, about Infoworld's recently announced "Best of Open Software Awards 2009." As a frequent downloader, user, and recommender of open-source software, I just don't get it. And neither do my colleagues, who have already weighed in on the strange circumstances surrounding some of Infoworld's picks for best business process management tool, amongst others.

But this isn't some Grandpa Simpson-like complaining about who should have won this, and why Pidgin didn't win that. No, the fault is not the presence of the awards banquet; it's the menu. Awards that focus on the open-source world invariably highlight the wrong aspects of the movement at the expense of areas that should rightfully be noted. While I can't speak to many of Infoworld's enterprise-themed selections--in fact, that's all the site elects to highlight--I think there's something to be said for calling out important software triumphs in the open-source world. We, in the media, are just prone to pointing the spotlight the wrong way.

Infoworld's Bossie awards start out questioning the kinds of third-party programs that should ultimately make it to the winner's circle. None do, as the article is more enterprise-focused than consumer. However, I couldn't help but notice that most--if not all-- of the programs on the hypothetical list are should be on OSS Medicare--they're old. Gimp? Blender? Handbrake? OpenOffice.org? Come on. It's akin to saying that The Rolling Stones,The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Metallica are the greatest bands to ever create music, period.

Step one of any proper open-source awards program is to look beyond the applications that are featured at the top of a Google search for open-source. And just because a program serves as a suitable replacement for an expensive consumer application--like Gimp--doesn't necessarily mean that it's a cut above programs that offer just as great of functionality minus the retail hook. Sure, honor these programs once, but I think they've been brought up enough. Everyone knows Babe Ruth was a great hitter. He shouldn't be the 2009 MVP.

Step two: expand the categories. Or, for that matter, create categories. And make them more relevant than generic. I'm not as concerned about the best-of-class open-source program as I am about more minute aspects of a software's applicability in the open-source world. How about a "best community" award? Most diverse fork of an open-source project? Most innovative UI? Best revival of a program after 3+ years of inactivity?

I could brainstorm up a list of twenty different categories that are both worthy of note and specific enough in their focus as to generate increased interest in the software itself. Naming the best open-source Web browser does nothing for me (Firefox, by the way). I'd much rather find out about a more obscure browser that features, say, the most integration of other open platforms or elements. Open-source should be a ticket to discovering new innovations. But the more one places open-source software into generic buckets, the harder it is to find true gems amongst the stereotypical standouts.

Finally--and this one is a biggie--I would make sure that the software or services highlighted in said awards are actually, you know, following the tenets of open source. For this, I turn back to a company mentioned in InfoWorld's article, Intalio.

Without getting into too many confusing details, Intalio doesn't exactly allow just anyone to pick up the source code for any of its business process management tools. The company's "Community Edition" of its Intalio Designer, Server, and Workflow software is free to download off the site, but there's no mention of how one acquires the corresponding source code for the Eclipse-licensed software. Paying enterprise customers have full access to the source code, and Intalio does mention that one can find source code components from existing third-party communities.

Still, it's not like this is explicitly spelled out on the download page (or a subsequent licensing page, for that matter), nor is it a true "here is all the source code for our binary" acknowledgement. The whole solution is a bit slippery in terms of dealing with the Eclipse mandate: "Its license agreement states that source code for the Program is available from such Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange."

It almost sounds like common sense. When throwing awards into the open-source community like bread to a flock of ducks, don't just give a single duck all the bread. Stop throwing up generic awards like "Best Open-Source Instant Messenger," because that means little compared to the ways a program has succeeded in the critical areas that make open-source unique. And, seriously, let's save the accolades for groups or companies that embrace the "open" part of the phrase instead of those that find clever workarounds to sell more paid-for versions of the programs. Maybe that can be an award in itself: Best Licensing Workaround.

David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source as well as weekly roundups of awesome, freebie software. Befriend him on Twitter, especially if you have an awesome app or game you're dying to recommend!