Striking a balance between mindsets might be a factor on which the success of Free software is hinged.

Put simply, a struggle against so-called ‘pragmatism’ may have been one of the greatest barriers to wider adoption of Free software.

However, at the same time, such a struggle ensures that Free software never devolves to become excessively assimilated to proprietary software, at which point its fundamental goals are simply not met.

Over the past 25 years, Free software fought its growing pains and became an integral part of the computer industry.

Against all odds, Free software, which at a later stage grew alongside the Open Source branch, has reached and touched almost every aspect of our lives, at least as far as computing goes.

In the case of Open Source, nowadays it’s common to find that similar concepts get adopted almost everywhere, not just in technology.

To give a few examples demonstrating ubiquity, Google is powered by Free software at its deeper levels and Mozilla Firefox, which is said to have reached approximately 123 million desktops and laptops, is by all means Open Source software.

The various BSDs gain acceptance also. As Macintosh users are probably aware, their system enjoys a symbiotic relationship with BSD (or Darwin) development. Even Microsoft Windows contained portions of BSD-licensed code.

When it comes to Free software, the outlook seems bright. Market predictions are largely optimistic and sharp growth of Open Source software is foreseen quite uniformly.

An overwhelming lump of investments which were seen at the beginning of 2008, along with the one-billion-dollar acquisition of MySQL and another of Trolltech, are definite signs that Free software is no longer just a niche in the industry; it is a major part of it.

Obstacles To Adoption

There are areas where Free software has been more successful than others. In order to understand how adoption can be sped up, one needs to look at known weaknesses and barriers, then address them.

There are two separate sides to consider here; the first is the environment to which Free software needs to adapt, and the second is the environment in which Free software is being developed.

In the first case, a reciprocal relationship can be seen. The industry wishes to leverage Free software to its own advantage, whereas Free software relies on an industry which supports, funds, and contributes improvements to the software being deployed.

Those two sides are bound to meet half-way and benefit mutually.

In the second case, there are frictions to be addressed and reconciliations to be reached. As alluded to at the beginning of this article, there is no single ideology which represents everyone.

There are those who prefer to make compromises that can be seen as shortcuts to acceptance, which come at a cost.

This is typically accompanied by caution or resistance from one side (developers) and acceptance from another (targeted market).

Separate strands — at times even referred to as “movements” — adopted slightly different routes to a digital emancipation.

They strive to accomplish very similar goals, but they use different software licenses. While their philosophy is not inherently the same, it is still almost identical.

The development methodologies are largely consistent across the different strands and yet, unnecessary arguments sometimes get in the way. That barrier is akin to a ‘civil war’ and it can quickly becomes a distraction.

In order for Free software to become more dominant, here are just a couple of broad issues that need to be resolved. They correspond to the items above.

External Factors

The problem: In a market where customers are seen as passive, they are often referred to as consumers.

Most consumers out there in the market are oblivious to the ideas that make up Free software.

To many people, “Free software” means “cheap software,” which at a mental level translates to “bad quality.”

However, “Free software” truly ought to be synonymous with freedom, as in free speech or liberty.

This ambiguity in the English language can be misleading, and unfortunately it has been rather damaging to this software’s reputation.

In recent years, innocent consumers have grown more familiar with some harms of proprietary software by witnessing unwanted behaviors that can be explained in fairly simple terms.

Examples include the inability to access or edit one’s family videos and the loss of access to entire music collections, which need to be repurchased.

As the days go by, computers control the user more then the user controls his/her own computer. Software producers gain greater control over the user’s wallet, too.

“Why,” you ask? Because they can, particularly as long as customers obey and accept rather than demand change through resistance.

There is clearly a problem of perception here. Users who are ‘external’ to the development world frequently fail to see where they are being led and how they are being controlled.

Additionally, despite the fact that software is not tangible, people tend to forget that software is duplicated virtually free of charge and therefore, cost of acquisition says very little about quality. The value of software depends a great deal on the number of people who use it.

Companies that stock and sell Free software are still required to combat public perceptions, which is why the term “Open Source” is used more commonly than “Free software.”

What remains unclear, however, is the number of Free software values that are maintained once this transition from Free software to Open Source is made. This can lead to backlash.