The following ramble of ideas, scribbled hastily between writing a paper on Philosophy and Cinema, another on Ethics and the Passions in Aristotle, and yet another on Methodological approaches in Comparative Indigenous Studies (ahh, the joy of being an undergraduate), is intended to explore, with a little more depth, the philosophical concepts surrounding the term 'Open' particularly as it is used in the composite term 'Open Source'.

The term Web 2.0 is quite relevant, even if you disagree with its use.  Whether we're going to agree that a new term is needed to describe particular enhancements in Internet technologies is irrelevant.  That these enhancements have occurred is what's important.  Developments in web based technologies have led to a fundamental shift in the way the public as a whole is able to access and engage in various discourses.  Blogs, forums, instant messaging, and collaborative engagement tools are all examples of the new landscape these technologies are opening.  I will use the term Web 2.0 in describing this new interactive direction of Internet based technologies.

A fair amount of Web 2.0 technology is developed and intended to be used as Open Source.  My web server runs Debian, this website uses the Drupal content management system, the images on this site were created with The Gimp, and I'm writing this post in Open Office on Ubuntu Linux.  All of these technologies are Open Source.  In the world of computer technology Open Source means that the source code of the software is available for all to see, modify, redistribute...or really to do whatever one wishes.  Open Source basically allows access to all the 'meta data' behind any piece of software.

This level of access combined with the collaborative world of Web 2.0 allows for many opportunities.  All of the Open Source software that I've mentioned above is developed via Web 2.0 technologies incorporating the work of many individuals that would previously never have been able to gather together.  Further, because the development of many Open Source applications is conducted in a way that allows access to the software code, the applications are available at no cost to the end user.  Because my entire electronic world uses Open Source software the only thing I've paid for is hardware.

All well and good.  Defining Open Source is not my intention however, I'll leave that to those with the knowledge and desire to do so.  I'm interested in Philosophy and that's where I'm now going to explore.  When I've spoken to peers and colleagues about Open Source Philosophy, Philosophy of Open Source, or something along these lines, the discussion usually ends up with the term 'Open Access'.  Open Access initially seemed to me to be a synonym for Open Source except it is more of a verb (in spite of the capital lettering).  Open Source describes a material phenomena, a piece of code for example, where as Open Access describes the way in which we engage with this code.  Open Access, however, can also provide a location for engagement with Closed Source material too.  It's only the method of access that is Open and not the material itself.  I can't really do anything with the material once I have it in my possession.  Therefore I'm not going to discuss Open Access further.

One further comment that pops up (much more with my on-campus colleagues rather than with my external colleagues) is 'how in hell does Open Source relate to philosophy, isn't it just about writing computer code more efficiently?'  Of course Open Source is about computer code but it's about much more besides.  Computer code is the best known example of Open Source and I've even slipped into using it here as an example.  But this does not negate the philosophical import of the concept of Open Source.  This, I hope, will become apparent below.

Politics is fundamental to Open Source.  The way we access information, and the types of information we have access to, is fundamental in shaping the society in which we live.  Nietzsche's Master and Slave morality immediately came to mind when I first thought about Open Source in philosophical terms.  Now do excuse me if I mix up some of Nietzsche's terminology as I've not studied his philosophy in great detail (comments most welcome below).  Nor is this a detailed exposition of Nietzsche on Open Source (although, given time, I would quite like to explore that dimension).  Nietzsche's aristocracy, those who possess the master morality, those beyond good and evil, would be appalled by the concept of Open Source.  Opening up the details of how the world functions to all would be seen as far from beneficial.  Open Source would, however, feature as quite a high goal for the followers of the slave morality.  Slave morality seeks the benefit of all.  Slaves are powerless to achieve on their own, it is only through collective action, collaboration, that the masses can receive any kind of benefit.  The slave morality places values such as kindness and humility at the fore.  Through processes such as utility, the slave morality attempts to bring the standards, prospects, conditions etc. of all into line.  There are no elite few but a content majority.

Nietzsche's slave morality suits the concept of Open Source quite well.  Through the collaboration associated with the development of Open Source products humility becomes necessary for no single person can alone claim complete credit.  Kindness too is apparent.  It is a kind act to open up the development and use of certain products to all, especially to those previously suppressed when the given product, or something akin to it, was available but not Open Source.  Through an almost Utilitarian process the Open Source movement is seeking the greater good for all, attempting to unseat the control possessed by the modern day aristocrats, those who possess and control others through Closed Source products.

Whether this process will be a success or a failure remains to be seen and is not entirely relevant to my little ramble.  What I am interested in is whether or not the targets of Open Source (targets in the sense of aristocrats and not those that the Open source products are aimed at) really are in such a privileged position.  Are the software giants, to use another computer analogy, really aristocrats?  Does Web 2.0, to use yet another computer analogy, break down the control of information, allowing the slaves access to the world of the aristocrats?  Does this process actually limit the position of the aristocrats?

I don't really know the answer to these questions.  I was going to explore them with a little more Nietzsche, some Foucault, and possibly some Heidegger, but I think I'll just leave them open ended for now.  I didn't mention above that I also have a Buddhism essay to complete so I'll get back to that now.