Open source and nonprofits
As you might have noticed, in this course I have cast a pretty wide net. I have tried to demonstrate the dizzying breadth of the nonprofit sector, and this week's readings and class is only going to contribute to this sense of diversity.
First of all, let's consider the Lee and Cole article. Their object, the Linux kernel, has been developed in a radically different manner than other operating systems. Rather than being made in a traditional firm (like Microsoft), Linux was made by a core of developers and a large community of Internet-mediated volunteers. The intention from the outset was to develop software that was free - free in the sense that anyone could modify it.
This object has largely puzzled researchers. Why on Earth would anyone give away their code? Why would people spend their free time contributing? How could this be feasible economically?
I think Lee and Cole go a long way towards answering these questions, noting that a lot of our assumptions about how things get done and produced involve us assuming a) things only happen in hierarchical firms and b) things only happen when people get paid (and are thus subject to managerial control) and c) the firm owns and controls the product that is produced.
Instead, in Linux, there is no hierarchy; rather there is a meritocratic core-periphery, where there is a core group of developers and a large group of participant-volunteers who write code, find bugs, and suggest changes. All of this is available to the public for scrutiny and critique.
This model has major implications in your life, whether you know it or not. First of all, the GMU web is entirely run on Linux servers - as is much of the Web. In addition, perhaps you use software that has followed this model: Firefox, Open Office, or Zotero. Zotero is a particularly interesting case; it was developed here at Mason.
What I am researching in my dissertation is the application of the model to social networking. If you have ever used Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Google, then you've seen the product of a variation on the Linux model. These web services rely heavily upon you being a volunteer. That is, if you upload a video, post a Tweet, or update your Facebook status, you are contributing to those sites - free of charge - and your contribution leads to the site being more valuable for more people.
But setting this aside for the moment, let's ask nonprofit-specific questions. Have you used any of the software I've mentioned here or in my last email? How does it stack up?
Deeper still, can we apply the Linux model to the nonprofit world in general? Does the Lee and Cole article help you understand how nonprofits and volunteers get things done? Can we imagine open source used in other areas besides software? Can the open source idea be used to feed the poor? Create art? Fix up broken down homes? Educate?
Leave 'em in the comments.
Labels: linux, open source
posted by Robert W. Gehl @ 11:30 AM
23 Comments:
I use Firefox primarily as my web browser because it has better features overall than Explorer or Safari. Personally, Firefox is more user-friendly because I like how Mozilla set up of the program for their users. I think the Linux model is applied in nonprofits in general though the results varied from nonprofit to nonprofit. Lee and Cole show me that putting your heads together and get the job done in manageable fashion make nonprofits and volunteers to get a great amount of their work done. Open Source opens up new possibilities for nonprofits but there are going to be road blocks along the way since the community as a whole may not attempt to use an open source due an issue of trust. Trust is a key element in order for things to be achieved and the foundation of volunteers. Special Olympics has to built trust between the athletes and volunteers for its ideas and benefits to take place and developed.
The Lee and Cole article made me understand that like their "Community-Based Model" nonprofits is about the public knowing their mission and that volunteers are the core of the organization. Being that Linux and OpenSource are free programs allows users (volunteers) to actually get involved with the organization. Like most non-profit organizations, the developers of these programs depend on volunteers to carry out their mission, need the public to give feedback on what the program can improve on, and by interacting for free gives users more incentive to participate.
I use Firefox as my default browser because I like the visual attractiveness and that the prgoram itself is always a step ahead of Explorer. By the public being able to access Firefox for free when it first launched, computer users could easily compare it to Explorer and saw the difference that it made. I don't believe non-profits are competeing against one another, but they do want a large number of volunteers so the organization can continue and not be washed under because of low participation.
Actually, I preferred Microsoft Office since I am familiar with its programs already that there will be no point to change to a third party program. I was quite familiar with Endnote for the first two years and got used to Zotero. I still think that creators of Endnote suing us for using some of their operating systems in Endnote to make Zotero. There is that problem of legally making a new program of your original design then get a lawsuit from some main stream business that you stole some of their operating system. It just plain annoying to waste money over a silly issue. Though Facebook faced that problem but the charges were dropped. Even on a fourm site I used, some person was bringing a charge of copyright on the creator when they also violated copyrights laws as well. Everyone has their preferences for computer programs and web browsers. Honestly, I preferred Facebook over Myspace because it shows maturity over the users of Myspace. It is just a preference of mine and my views on social networks. In the end, it is all about preferences of people.
First, I want to share some thoughts about the main article we were assigned. Since I have read Hayek’s work about knowledge, I like the parallel the authors draw. If knowledge is really dispersed, which is a legitimate claim, we cannot really expect a firm-based model to first of all develop a product to its optimal quality, as the know-how for that is dispersed all through this planet. Furthermore, even after a product is developed, in a firm-model, the incentive for improvement isn’t that great; for instance, the authors states that in a firm-based model, once a product is developed the attention shifts to another product rather than developing and improving. Nevertheless, even given these limitations of the firm-model, while reading, I was still skeptical about the community-based model. PROFIT is the key driving force for innovation and creation of knowledge, and clearly, this force is absent from the community based model. I understand the authors argument that the reason this model works in the LINUX case is because the culture of the creators, their idea of copyrighting, the two-tier model, and the reinforcement of the culture by social norms. These are the key reasons behind Linux success and its utilization of volunteers; however, I think this model cannot work, or might not work this well, in other community-based problems like feeding the poor.
Looking at some of my friends, who enjoying adding to the LINUX code, although they don’t do it for the money, like in firm-model, they do it for the sense of accomplish; basically, the enjoy messing with technological stuff, and they enjoy challenges of these sorts. Working with this kind of “stuff” is especially relevant for them because people our page spend a lot of time on the internet, so basically, they are improving something that they are the biggest users off and something that affects their life everyday. As wrong as this sounds, we don’t think every morning about hunger or lack of education in the world, and one of the first things we do is check facebook. I think my beliefs are in line with the article, as the authors, on page 646 state that this model is not applicable in other areas as “products that target niche products may not have sufficiently large user base, which could potentially become developers.” Thus, we are more likely to volunteer for things that directly affect us.
Before Mr. Gehl’s blog post, I could say that I have never used anyone of these open source software. However, now I know that facebook and GMU computers use these software, so I can’t claim that anymore; I use Microsoft windows and explore on my computer to learning about these soft wares was a new experience. After I looked at the philosophy behind Ubuntu, it seemed to align well with the ideas of Lee and Cole article; I recommend these two webpages http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy and http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing. They can be thought of a non-profit in the sense that their good “software” is avialble free of charge. I also visited the two sites endote and zotero; just the feel of the site itself gives an insight into the difference between the firm-based vs. community-based. END NOTE is all about purchasing information; on the contrary, the ZOTERO markets itself by stating that if a university adopts it, its students will enjoy adding to its code. I also visted the open office website since I haven’t really used it, I am not sure about its features. However, it seemed like a better idea than the several hundered dollars I paid for the professional MS office software. Furthermore, like the LEE and COLE article stated, a community-based article insures more improvement; the open office.org talks about their timeliness in detecting bugs. I guess this makes sense because microsoft is often slow in fixing “bugs” and issuing software patches.
I've compared Zotero and End Note, and I can see why GMU came up with Zotero. Most college students do not have the money to purchase software and the Microsoft Office suite is quite expensive to our pockets. That is why most students use the computer lab. By universities coming up with a program that is free for students to use on their laptops to take notes during class was a simple concept. However, it has its consequences as Jerry mentions, Zotero is getting sued for using the "same" code. The upside like Ashmia stated is, Zotero being a open source program insures improvement and can detect bugs unlike corporate programs like Microsoft which takes months to fix problems.
I think the comment Professor Gehl made about the social networking sites, like Facebook, being a trade-off for both its users and its producers is completely true. Facebook users have made the site so popular that it extends beyond a simple social network between college students. Now, college students, high school students, employers, family members, and organizations can create profiles to connect with and attract the users of the site. Even if those of the older generation are not as computer or internet savvy as those of the younger generation, they know that it is important to create a connection and reach out to those in the vast community of the World Wide Web.
It is interesting that we are discussing this topic this week because for the past two weeks I have been working on a Facebook page for the nonprofit organization I am working with. Although the women who I work with are not too old, they are certainly not of the Facebook age. But, they knew that they needed to get connected in order to spread the word about Food for Others, and they knew that the 21-year-old intern would know exactly how to set this page up. It has been interesting teaching the staff all about Facebook, since they have been so disconnected from that kind of social networking. Yet, they know that in order to stay in the loop with the modern age of networking, they must adapt to websites like Facebook and LinkedIn so their message can reach more people.
Looking at how open source technology fits into the larger context of nonprofit organizations is indeed an interesting idea. As a proponent of open source software I am pleased that we will be talking about this next class period.
I have a couple thoughts about open source software - first of all I am a huge fan of Mozilla Firefox as well as operating systems like Linux and other Creative Commons software from sites like SourceForge. At one time I even had Redhat installed on my home PC but gave up on it after realizing I would have to learn (another) command line based operating system. Plus, Linux isn’t compatible with games which require DirectX, since it is owned by Microsoft. ((I am aware that Linux has GUIs, but even so you need a strong understanding of the underlining commands to really make it work))
I believe there certainly is a model for open source success in the marketplace. I would propose using either Wikipedia’s model (structure similar to a foundation) or a service based model which provides you the product (say, an open source web platform) for free, then charges you for access to special services provided by the company. Either seems viable, imo.
I have never been very good at using different browser and compare them to see what is the most efficient. I have always used Internet Explorer as it is what is on my computer. I have heard of Firefox as being easier to navigate than Internet Explore and provided Microsoft competition to be better its tool. It is interesting to know that people creating those open sources continue to upgrade by them by listening to volunteers comments. Volunteers play an important role in using those open source program in their participation in making the program well known and giving important feedback in making the product friendlier. Like volunteering for a non profit organization, volunteers help that particular organization get ahead by offering their skills. Volunteers will not get paid thus they will allow the company to save some money and continue to exist. Additionally, I support the Linux model because it allows people instead of companies to better upgrade technology that directly support and enhance our everyday lives, such as George Mason being the founder of Zotero, which surprised me.
I believe that non-profits can take advantage of open source media because it allows the non-profit to reach others with the same goals and missions, such as using Facebook to accomplish this task. Furthermore, using the open source medium for non-profits is more cost effective and still allows the non-profits to sue cutting edge technology solutions. For example, at the homeless shelter that I volunteered at I could see how they could use the open source technology to support their goals and needs, such as communicating with other homeless shelters locally and nationally that meet the same goals, helping the homeless to develop technical skills that would help them in the job market, and providing an additional cost benefit for them.
I use Firefox, YouTube, Google and Facebook. I enjoy all of these programs and they have great potential for a variety of needs. My boss has two jobs, apart from being my boss he works for a nonprofit doing social networking using these programs. So, seeing as the nonprofit he is employed with is successful I can say that these programs are also successful. I think that open source can be used beyond what we are talking about right here. Perhaps I'm confused to the definition of open source but I hope not, but art is already entering the open source realm. Go to blublu.org to see art that is released to the public under a creative commons license, meaning you are free to copy, distribute and display his work for non commerical purposes only. Although it is not allowed to make modifications to the work which partly defines open source, "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." I think that open source could potentially be used beyond software purposes but it is difficult to think about for me beyond that realm.
I liked what Hoang-Khanh P said about nonprofits depending on volunteers to carry out their mission. The N.P. I am working with, Earth Sangha, relies almost completely on volunteer effort to complete their mission. They are about ecological restoration and removing invasive plants and replacing them with natives. They don't have a large staff and even then, their mission is large and volunteers are needed. It would be interesting to apply open source to them.
I had not really considered using open source software on my own pc until I read the article about the Linux model. After reading about why Linux is different from Windows, however, I understood why people are interested in software like this. Linux is a really interesting idea, and I am glad there are open source options out there for people to have input in, allowing the user to improve upon the product themselves. Part of the article I was particularly interested in was the explanation of the citation system users are required to use within the Linux submission community. I think prestige must be a significant motivating factor for many of the people who choose to improve on the open source software. While the person making the change may not be known be the general public, their contribution to Linux will be known by all the other people improving on their model in successive releases of the software. It may sound weird, but I think if would be really cool to be a proficient enough programmer to make a contribution to a global open source interface like Linux.
Looking at YouTube or Facebook as a form of open source is a really interesting idea. I only use YouTube passively (i.e. I only watch videos) so I never think of it as a site that I contribute to. I do wonder about, and thank, the people who spend the time and the effort to upload the hours of endless video. Sort of like the Linux example, this seems to me to be a kind of reverse voyeurism. People want others to know what is going on in their lives, to be acknowledged as a unique individual. I am an avid user of Facebook, and this is certainly true of my experience on that site. While people who update their status several times a day are contributing to the open source website, I think it may be for individual attention rather than the gratification of others more often than not.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@ Savanna H. -
You're working with Earth Sangha? That's awesome. I'm friends with Lisa & Chris Bright and have done work for them as well. They are a really wonderful couple and their native plant nurseries are amazing!
With respect to some of your other questions, I don’t see how open source can be used to feed the poor or fix up houses, unless you count open source software which might manage food donation databases, or an open source software program like Wings3D for home design. As far as creating artwork, sure! Just download yourself a copy of TheGimp, a very nice open source image editing program ((similar to Adobe Photoshop)).
As far as how well the programs hold up against commercial software, I think that if they are well maintained they are equal or superior to the competition as far as quality is concerned. Open source operating systems still have a way to go before being truly competitive with Microsoft Windows however. Their complexity and incompatibility with 'off the shelf' applications, the type you might buy at your local computer store, means that using Linux as your primary operating system will remain, at least in the short term, exclusively the domain of computer nerds. The principles behind open source are sound, and hopefully in the future more software will be developed using this model.
((correct me if I’m wrong, but aren't some versions/editions/releases of specific Linux kernels proprietary?))
i think the linux model can be a form of non-profit. It is an association of people getting together to share their passion, their talent and knowledge with society for free. that talent and knowledge provides a service for those that otherwise could not afford expensive proprietary software, and it actually provides for a very fine tuned, powerful operating system because of the many creative minds and critiques and fixes that go into it. Like they always say, two heads are better one, well thousands of heads are way better than two! In fact it is arguable that open source software is some of the most advanced because the people who work on and develop it are the most passionate, and therefore skilled in their feild.
Reading some of the other blog posts, I think it is interesting that we have come to a day where, if a company or organization is unhappy with a product, it can produce its own version with the support of others who share the same ideals and needs. The obvious example of the George Mason produced Zotero shows just what kind of world we are living in now. In one of my research classes freshman year, I was required to use Endnote. In my experience, it was not a user-friendly system and caused more hassle then necessary to create a database of sources and bibliographical information. I do not know if Endnote's accessibility, or lack thereof, was the main driving force behind Mason's creation of Zotero, but it certainly has created a functioning bibliographic web base that can be easily used by students.
I think it is wonderful for the general public to be able to take advantage of these new open sources. It certainly aids in an organizations development and outreach. With programs that cater to a greater range of needs, like Zotero, nonprofits can more readily advance their social networking skills.
I must say that I am somewhat skeptical about the community-based model. I believe that without the profit motive, the pinnacle of innovation will never be reached. Yes, volunteers are great and it is always great to engage people who desire to share and exchange ideas for free but, the innovation will always be lagging behind. Yes, I understand that the knowledge and innovation from the firm-based model is limited to the boundaries of the firm but within these firms are the best and the brightest. Furthermore, these firms compete to consistently come up with the next best innovation fueled by profit but, it is society who benefits from this at the end of the day.
I have been a user of Firefox for a while now but I must say I never truly respected the company as I did until reading about the structure of the company. I had no idea that it was a non-profit and thrived because of volunteer involvement. Firefox demonstrates how important a role volunteers play in open source programming. I never thought about volunteerism and IT coming together for the common good of society but I guess Zotero and Mozilla are showing just how strong non profits are and that it is a sector that can cater to any need.
Ilana Epstein
I agree with whitney that this system does seem to have the qualities of a nonprofit. Coming together for a common cause and fighting for what they believe is right. I knew absolutely nothing about linex prior to the reading and am still a little confused about the system, technology is not really my thing. I would like to know more about how provisions that are made by the general public are monitored so it's not just a free for all like wikapedia.
That's what your dissertation is about?! Maaaaan, that is waaay nerdy but in a web 2.0 kind of way. Not my thing but more power to you.
I guess the first thing that came to mind was where we place our values. I feel like in most cases, the value here is being placed on convenience, time, and simplicity. We deal with MS Vista or Office because it came with our computers and other people use it. That's also what we're being taught in our classes. So why would we want to use this other stuff that's just hanging out on the internet?
I honestly don't think money is the answer. Now maybe in some cases.......like, I don't want to buy Photoshop so I use a simple open source photo-editing program like the one Savanna mentioned......that might have to do with money. However, not using Microsoft or Apple programs isn't about money. Isn't that weird? The fact that you are interested in these open source programs has nothing to do with money. That's kind of a foreign concept to me. Why bother then? Where is the value?
Without having done any research or readings yet, this is my theory. Using a program like Linux is like riding a fixed gear bike. You actually have to be "in to" fixed gear bikes to ride one. There are no casual fixed gear bike riders that I know of; only enthusiasts. That makes it seem like an "in" thing which could go two ways -- it could seem incredibly "hip" or "cool".....or it could just be incredibly lame. After all, why would I want a bicycle that doesn't coast? Is that just more work for me?
Why would I want Linux? Isn't that just more work for me?
There is a small number of people who for some reason or another like that extra work. Money has nothing to do with it. Some people think it's great exercise riding a fixie. Some people get some kind of joy out of taking the time and effort to learn to use Linux. I think the value is on enjoyment; these things are somehow associated with enjoyment even though I think fixed gear bikes would be a form of hell. You know, I spend a lot of time cooking and packing my lunches for the week and some people think I'm nuts. Yeah, there's the money issue -- it is cheaper to pack a lunch than to buy it -- but I don't think that's why I do it. Most other people don't feel like going to the grocery store, cooking the stuff, putting it in containers, and then carrying it around all day. I think I do it because I like to do it. I like cooking and I like eating the food I make or put together. I honestly don't think it makes a lot of sense but that's ok. People ride fixies and people use Linux and I lug a bag of food around with me all day. Whatevs.
I like the idea of working together as a community rather than competing for money, but because people are so diverse and have many different ideals, I'm not sure if complete collaboration will ever work. I'm not really a computer nerd (I use Microsoft Office, including IE), so I wasn't very familiar with open-source software before these readings. One site that I am familiar with that allows users to edit and contribute to is Wikipedia, which, when used appropriately, can be a good site. However, because there are so many contributors and because it is known to contain invalid information sometimes, Wikipedia really should be used just as a starting point, and all material found on there needs to be verified. Part of the problem with Wikipedia may be that there are too many people involved; they may not have as much trouble with incorrect information being submitted if the site was more moderated. Even if the Wikipedia articles are not always accurate and correct, Wikipedia is a good example of a free program that people contribute to and helps to highlight both good and bad points of open source software.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxSVn0wUUm8
2009 SO Winter World Games
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home