Openness and cloud computing, Part I

The word 'Open' as it pertains to technology is tricky because it means different things to different people. There is an old lawyer joke that goes something like "Ask your question to three lawyers and you will get four opinions." The same can be said of asking interested parties about Open. Then, before you even have a chance to straighten all that out, someone will further muddle the discussion and throw the word 'Free' into the mix, with its own set of definitions, some of which overlap with Open.

Personally, when I hear the word Open, I first think of Open Source, meaning that everyone has not only the ability but the legal right to view and modify the code upon which the software is based. Another person could think Open means that other, third-party applications can interact with the software in question; this is called Open Standards or an Open API. A third person may hear the word Open and his first thought would be that the software or service is Open for anyone to try or join. This is an Open Beta or a site that is free to use, however the underlying software may be completely closed and proprietary. My mom might hear the word Open and check to see if she left her clamshell-style phone open.

So, with all these differing meanings and understanding, it is no wonder why Ari Jaaski's talk and subsequent post have created quite the stir in the Open Source sphere. Apparently, some people took great offense to some of what was said, or -in some cases- reported. I came across this somewhat backwards from the majority of the people that learned of this through the media or the blogosphere. I use a Nokia Internet Tablet running the Maemo operating system, so I learned of all this through the maemo-users mailing list. Maemo itself is an interesting platform and a great example for the above definitions of Open. At its heart, it is an operating system running a Linux (Free and Open Source) kernel, with a myriad of applications, some of which are Open Source, some employing Open Standards but the source is not available, and some that are just there for anyone with a tablet to use (the software is free for tablet owners, unlike upgrades to Microsoft Windows and the Mac OSX platforms. So, when Dr. Jaaksi talks about Open, he talks about it from a corporate viewpoint. And do not take that to mean I dismiss his comments in any way. In fact, the adoption of open source and open standards by various corporate entities is an important milestone for the community. This is putting open source software into the hands of people that have no idea what it is or what that means. They do not know they are using it, however, they reap the benefits from the hard work done by the community. This is the point: to give people a choice; not merely when they purchase or choose the product, but to continue to give them choices. Most may never take advantage of it, but the important thing is that the choice exists and the underlying products continue to be improved.

I believe that in some cases and especially from a consumer/user point-of-view, Open Standards are more important than Open Source. The open standards allow for But this is a dangerous short-sighted idea. What needs to happen is the progression from closed code to open standards and finally to open source. We see this happening with products like the Symbian s60 phone OS and it appears to be happening more every day. This is a very positive trend.