Free Software (also known as "Open Source" [1]) is not a fashion trend or an utopia. It is a tangible and unquestionable reality that human beings are capable of producing and maintaining public goods in a collective and cooperative way. It's not a spontaneous manifestation nor a "hippie" or communist revolution against the large software firms. Free Software is not a brand. It is simply a natural consequence of a series of events and in great measure are cyclic, and perfectly explainable, in the socio-economic history of the human race.

First, we have to understand the natural and predictable cycle of "Technological Revolutions" [2]. In this model, all revolutionary technologies (that define an era) are inevitably destined to become commodities, and in many cases the "product" model is gradually transformed into a "service" model as the technology enters it's final maturing stages and is replaced by the newer emerging technologies. This cycle has been repeating itself since the Industrial Revolution of 1771 with regular intervals of about 50 years each, counted from their "irruption" into the capital markets[3]. Because of this, is should not be a surprise that Information Technology (which entered in the market in 1971) will inevitably end in a commodity, or a "services-oriented" industry by the second decade of this century. In fact, today you can easily observe many of the signs of "Maturity" and saturation in the "ERP" [4] segment, for example. Just by understanding the above, it is not hard to understand why Free Software in the 21st Century (based mostly on services around a pubic good) is a viable option today, and it was probably not so viable in 1984 when the first "Free Software Manifesto" by Richard Stallman appears [5] (at precisely the same time that the "Frenzy" period of IT was installing itself, and that eventually led to the crash of NASDAQ in the turn of the Century).

Besides the purely economic issues described above, there are other factors that have made Free Software inevitable. Ever since the original Industrial Revolution of 1771, there have always been detractors of the modes of production established with it. There are also many movements agains the established Intellectual Property system that is used as instrument of "technological colonization". It is not a hidden fact that the current IP system is flawed to accomodate the newer technologies like Genetics and Nano-Technology. The current system without modifictation, would lead to genetic superiority that could be "bought" by the rich and powerful and a legal system that would protect this. It becomes obvious that these things need an exhaustive revision. In the same way, the methods of production, mostly based on the exploitation of man ("slavery by salary") and of natural resources, also need an exhaustive revision. Movements such as: Green Peace, the SOHO ("Small Office, Home Office") effect, the independent muscicians on the Internet and Creative Commons, which at first, may seem unrelated, are probably not. An neither is Free Software an isolated movement. To talk about Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) as an isolated purely technological phenomenon, not only shows ignorance in the IT world, but also of the world context that we live in today.

Free Software is not a trend. It is just a symptom of the changes that we are living and the changes to come, in a much wider and complex context than many people consider. Free Software has been able to create IT systems which are as good, and in many cases, better, than they proprietary counterparts, moreover at a much lower "Total Cost of Ownership" (TCO)[6]. It is not by chance that more than 60% of all Internet sites in the world today, run with Free and Open Source Software [7], a trend that continues to rise year after year.

Nevertheless, the advantages of higher quality, security and lower costs of FOSS, all fall short compared to greatest advantage of them all: freeing the final user from "vendor lock-in", a well known practice amongst technology providers. These -legal- malpractices, often used by the large technology corporations, and the governments that support them, limit technological development. To use FOSS and free technologies in general, is not a question of cost. It is a question of morale, liberty and sovereignty, which of course, are priceless.

Notes

[1] Even though the term "Open Source" usually refers to something very similar to "Free Software", the term is sometimes used to confuse clients into thinking that by being "Open Source" gives you the same freedoms and rights of "Free Software". Free Software is about liberty and not price. Open Source in the pure sense, refers to the right to have acces to the source code of a program, which fulfills just ONE of the FOUR basic rights users have when using "Free Software". Nevertheless, if the term "Open Source" is used within the boundaries approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), then it is very similar to the Free Software definition specified by the Free Software Foundation (and generally acceptable to use under much the same terms). BUT when "Open Source" is sometimes misused by companies like Microsoft(R) to deceive clients into thinking that by having access to the source code, they are giving clients the same rights than OSI Open Source, then the term is not being used correctly. It is usually misused on purpose by these companies in order to keep clients and government institutions away from the real Open Source, which is freely available and distributable right off the Internet.

[2] The term "Technological Revolution" was coined by the afamed economist Carlota Perez in her book "Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital".

[3] Perez, Carlota. "Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital - The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages". Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2002

[4] "Enterprise Resource Planning", are monolithic information systems that appeared in the mid 90s and that prommissed to correct the great failures of the MRP and MRP II (Material Resource Planning) systems of the 80s. After almost two decades, most of this segment has proved to be equally flawed as their ansestors, but at a much higher price. Today only three great players remain in this segment, after a series of hostile takeovers and great conglomerates. This is a classic symptom of the maturity and saturation periods of this market. ERPs are probably one of the best examples as to why IT systems should not be sold as "products" that can cost several million dollars in "licenses" and then another several million in on-going services to make them work. Many times, these ERP systems are modified completely, very much away from the original "product", rendering the "upgrade" process completely useless, even though the client is continues to pay as much as 25% of the original investment yearly in order to receive limited phone support and new versions. Even worse, many of the companies that actually use commercial ERPs, hardly ever get to use more that 20% of the complete capabilities of the software.

[5] Richard Stallman, an ex-employee of the artificial intelligence labs of MIT. He is said to be the father of the term "Free Software" with a manifesto published on the Internet around 1984. For more information regarding this story please visit the GNU Project.

[6] Many propriteray software firms have maintained campaigns over the past few years, trying to demonstrate that Free Software systems have higher TCOs than proprietary ones. While this argument may hold true in some scenarios (specially the laboratory ones!) it is in most part a FUD campaign that holds no real truth and scientific backing whatsoever. In the real world, many companies that use proprietary software have never used, or depend on, the support provided by the software firms. The hard truth is that companies and government large and small are switching to Free and Open Source Software, and this has some software company firms very angry and impotent. This in turn, has led to many FUD campaings to prevent people from migrating to Free Software.

[7] Internet sites such as Amazon and Google are a reality thanks to Free Software. ¿why did they choose Free Software over Proprietary? ¿Is it just a question of Cost?

Bibliographic References

Fink, Martin. "The Business and Economics of Linux and Open Source". Prentice Hall Ptr; 1ST edition (September 20, 2002),# ISBN-10: 0130476773 # ISBN-13: 978-0130476777

Perez, Carlota. "Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital - The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages". Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2002-2003. ISBN-10: 1843763311, ISBN-13: 978-1843763314

Raymond, Eric S. "The Cathedral and The Bazaar". O'Reilly Media; Revised edition (January 15, 2001). ISBN-10: 0596001088 ISBN-13: 978-0596001087

On-line References

The GNU Project
The Open Source Iniciative
Creative Commons
Google Servers
Amazon Servers
The SourceForge Repository: More than 140.000 FOSS Projects
The FreshMeat Repository: More than 40.000 FOSS Projects
The GNU Savannah Repository: More than 2.500 FS Projects
New DoD Report on the use of FOSS
Study: free software in the U.S. Department of Defense