![[ company ]](../res/image/headers/company.png)
We believe in open source software and the open source initiative. However, this new social and economic model raises many questions and concerns over intellectual property, copyrights, patents, trademarks, and maintaining revenue. This page offers our thoughts on open source as it relates to business, modern society, and our work.
The fact is open source software and the concepts behind open source information already exist and are changing are world everyday. The internet itself runs in it's present form relying completely on an open source program called BIND. The Mozilla Firefox web browser, recommended by the US State Deparment over MS Internet Explorer for security reasons, is also an open source project. Wikipedia.org, a major informational resource in the 21st century is not only open source software, but open source information free to add, edit, and use by any one for just about any reason.
However, the implications of the various methodologies behind the open source movement have not fully been explored or discovered. There are various licensing models offering differing levels of "openness" available. These range from free to use, to free redistribute, to free to modify for personal use, to free to do whatever the heck you want.
As far as we are concerned at imotion, the most important thing to understand about open source software and is the guiding principle behind our open source policies is that FREE as used in reference to open source software DOES NOT MEAN WITHOUT COST. We would go one step further and state that it does not mean without ownership and subsequent rights.
FREE means the freedom to purchase or otherwise acquire something and have the right to CHANGE it.
For example, if I buy a new car, I am not prohibited from adding a supercharger, adding racing stripes, or putting in a new car stereo. I may void the warranty on the car, but I am FREE to CHANGE and IMPROVE my car in any way I see fit within legal reason (and even then I am free to do that if I accept the consequences.
However, with proprietary software, such as Microsoft Office, this is exactly what is happening. I have purchased the product, begin using it and think that I would like to add a new menu to automatically include text from my a website, but I can't. Worse, if there is a bug in the software, I must wait for the company to fix it. If I get a flat tire on my new car, I can take it in under warranty, but I have the power to take it anywhere I want and have them fix or replace the tire.
This is the basis for the concept of open source software and generally accepted by all open source developers regardless of license.
[ i ] motion development follows this principle.
When evaluating software for use internally, we do not first consider whether a program is open source or proprietary. We will attempt to locate open source solutions first but always evaluate the proprietary counterparts. The reason for this is that open source is neither better or worse than proprietary in an ideal world. They are two different modes of thinking.
We value open source software and concepts because of ideals of community and collaborative behavior they foster. However, open source solutions are not always better. Sometimes they are the best.
For personal web browsing we only use Mozilla Firefox. In this case, it is certainly not because it is cheaper than other solutions (all real options being free of charge), but because from our personal experience it is superior in all ways, most importantly regarding true rendering of intended content, and security. Then there is the bonus of the large community contributing more features and plug-ins every day.
Then comes Adobe Photoshop. There is no better example of closed source proprietary software that is vastly superior to anything on the market, open source or closed. There are various open source solutions for photo editing but none of them come close to the power, flexibility, and ease of use of Adobe Photoshop. This is not accident. They worked hard to make a good product. They used their own product. They listened to the people who were also using their product and they made it a good and useful product.
We do not object to Adobe making a profit on their good idea. We encourage it, as business owners ourselves we cannot dismiss the reality of making a living. Thus the complications with being a business and still supporting the ideals of the open source community.
The shape of an open source economy remains undefined, and [ i ] motion design wants to do it's part to act as a responsible member of society, contributing to the welfare of society, and our policies on open source software reflect this.
We understand that we live in a captalistic society and growing global consumerist culture. We understand that it is necessary to be able to earn a living in order to function within society. This is very reason we have opted not to join the Free Software Foundation and the GNU GPL (GNU General Public License).
At the heart of the FSF is a man named Richard Stallman. He is a visionary, and if we could somehow throw out our old ways of doing business and economic models, we might even be able to stand fully behind his tenets. However, the current economic, political, and social systems in existence today do not make this a reality, yet.
Basically, the FSF believes that all software should be FREE, both in the context of FREEDOM we already mentioned and FREE of charge. However, for reasons well outside the scope of this article, we oppose this viewpoint. Our basic viewpoint is that until society as a whole changes in dramatic ways, this goal is unrealistic in the short term, and that the dogmatic attitudes of the FSF are not in the best interest of society as a whole.
However, believing in the advancement and improvement of the human condition, we support the FREEDOM ideals behind the open source movement. We believe our open source policies move us in a better direction, while not being locked into dogmatic beliefs.
We believe that software, especially web applications should be open source, meaning that anyone who purchases or is offered software should have the ability and option to edit and improve it for their own use.
We believe that individuals and organizations who develop software should have the right to retain ownership and set their own policies on licensing based on thier own beliefs.
We believe that society at large would be better served by opening as much source code of all software to anyone who might be able to improve it. But we also understand that not everyone works on the honor system and it is still necessary to maintain a certain amount of exclusivity in a competitive world.
We believe that whenever possible, especially where software performs functions that are readily available in various forms, languages, and implementations, this code should always be open source.
We believe that individuals and organizations have the right to make a living within the current cultural and economic systems where they want and how they want.
We believe that even while developing close source proprietary solutions, the software should be designed in such a manner that all generic functions and methods that would not jeopardize trade secrets, or other private company information, patents, or processes should be releasable as open source code, while maintaining closed source on only the vital portions relevant to operating a succesful business.
We believe that having values are important, and striving for ideals is vital to the human experience, and that when applying this to the concept of open source software, we should remember that a little bit of common sense, and unselfish thinking can help everyone, while still allowing for competition and uniqueness.
Our web desktop and web application framework called Promarkit uses the Promarkit Public License, which is based entirely on the Mozilla Public License. To learn more about the licensing of Promarkit please visit the Promarkit section.
Our general policy for custom client development is to encourage licensing as much of every project as possible as open source using our Promarkit Public License as a basis. Generally we will close source on client projects at their request as little as possible, and only enough to protect the future success of our clients. This is part of our philosophy of doing business, building strong relationships, and client loyalty. This hybrid closed/open source model is what we are attemtping to foster and typically does not require any extra licensing fees.
We will not deny requests for completely proprietary software development, however we will charge licensing fees commensurate with the intended use of the application in question.
A gray area in our general policy rises with service type web applications such as developing a MySpace, digg.com, or other social networking or online only service. In order to run a successful business of this nature it is vital that competitors not have access to what makes your system tick, and just come back at you with the same exact, but improved service without having spent the time or money to earn it. We would still like to encourage the closed/open source hybrid licensing concepts, but understand that there are exceptions to every rule, and online web 2.0 style services pose a lot of exceptions and would deal with this like all of our projects on a case by case basis.
If you have further questions on our policies please contact us. We are here to work with you, not against you.
Like most companies grappling with the concept of open source software, we are continuing to evolve and challenge these beliefs. Hopefully this article has given you a better idea of what open source is, might be, and how we choose to apply it to our projects.
The Promarkit system is our goal for a unified open source concept. Utilizing the licensing strategy as orignally created by the Mozilla Public License, having flexibility in licensing attitudes and proprietary needs, and sharing as much as possible without compromising value allows for progress into a better world where people work together without taking away the natural tendency towards competition and the uniqueness of every individual.
Feel free to contact us to discuss it more.