Introduction

Before looking into the term "open source software", we shall grasp an idea on what
is "open source". According to one of the leading website on open source, Open Souce.com,
"open source" refers to "something that can be modified because its design is publicly
accessible".1 By adding the word "software", of course the subject matter would be software
which source code is free for usage and modification by public. The following question
would be what is source code then? Again, we shall refer to the professional definition by
Open Source.com; "source code" is the part of software that most computer users don't ever
see and it's the code computer programmers can manipulate to change how a piece of
softwarea "program" or "application"works.2 The persons who have access to this part of
software are called programmers where they are able to enhance the program by adding
elements to it or improving malfunctioned parts.
Open-source software is the most prominent instance of open-source development and it is
usually being compared to legally defined open-content movements or technically defined
user-generated content.3 Hence, we shall examine in depth such prominent example
comprised of what criteria. According to another trustworthy website on open source
software, Open Source Initiative, there are ten criteria which must be complied in order to
justify the product as open source software, among them include free distribution, no
discrimination against persons or groups and no discrimination against fields of endeavour.4
The authoritative website even stated down the reasons behind these justifications.5
1 Open Source, 'What is open source?' (opensource.com, 2014)
<http://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source > accessed 29 July 2014.
2 Open Source, 'What is open source?' (opensource.com, 2014)
<http://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source > accessed 29 July 2014.
3 Verts, W. T., Open Source Software (World Book Online Reference Center 2008)
4 Open Source Initiative, 'The Open Source Definition' (opensource.org, 2014)
<http://opensource.org/osd> accessed 29 July 2014.
5 Open Source Initiative, 'The Open Source Definition (Annotated)' (opensource.org, 2014)
<http://opensource.org/osd-annotated> accessed 29 July 2014.
1

After understanding the kind of such software, we shall proceed to the reasons of public
having preferences for this product.6 One of the ultimate reasons is most of the people prefer
having more control over the product. For instance, they are able to use, modify, distribute or
in any method as they like. Even users who are not professional programmers may gain
benefit because they can use it in whatever means as long as the terms of the software are
adhered to. Second reason would come from the programmers as this kind of software assist
them to be better. Due to the feature of publicly accessible, programming students or working
programmers grab the opportunity to study on how others write programme. Not only
learning, they can also share their work with others, where one of the selected licenses in this
assignment, Apache License highly encourages such sharing.7 The third reason would be the
security and stability of such software compared to proprietary software. Since it is publicly
accessible, there is higher possibility for spotting the errors done by software's original
author. It will also be updated in a faster pace generally as the permission from original
author is unnecessary.

6 Open Source, 'Why do people prefer using open source software?' (opensource.com, 2014)
<http://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source> accessed 29 July 2014.

7 The Apache Software Foundation, 'I'm not a lawyer. What does it all MEAN?' (apache.org, 2012)
<http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#WhatDoesItMEAN> accessed 29 July 2014.
2

Explain Apache License 2.0 & Mozilla Public License 2.0

Why is that open source licensing existing? We shall look at the following scenario; when a
customer purchases a new software, for example, Microsoft Word or Excel, he or she possess
the physical copy, manual copy and the right to use these software for the purpose which is
intended to, as a programme. By buying the original copy, this customer is bounded by
shrink wrap license and not allowed to copy this work for others. Open source licensing is
based on the foundation of eliminating these restrictions.8
In this written assignment, we pick Apache License 2.0 and Mozilla Public License 2.0 as our
subject matter of discussion. The reason of choosing these two licenses is because they are
being evaluated as popular, widely used, or have strong communities (as defined in the 2006
Proliferation Report).9

10

We shall look into three aspects for both licenses in order to

understand the rough idea of what they are, namely history development, licensing
conditions, and usage of such license by others, be it individuals or entities.
Before looking in the historical development, let us have some background information
regarding the Apache License 2.0 (AL 2.0). It is a software license which is free and written
by The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) which allows the all users of this software the
ultimate freedom to use this software for a lot of purpose, for example to distribute, to

8 Jeffrey A. Levine, 'Shrink-wrap Licenses - Shrinking Protection' (aigclaw.org, 1996)

<http://www.aigclaw.org/tic64.html> accessed 29July 2014.

9 Open Source Initiative, 'The Licence Proliferation Project' (opensource.org, 1996)

<http://opensource.org/proliferation> accessed 29 July 2014.

10 Open Source Initiative, 'Report of License Proliferation Committee and draft FAQ' (opensource.org, 1996)
<http://opensource.org/proliferation-report> accessed 29 July 2014.

modify, and to give out modified versions of this software, under terms of the license, without
the concern for any royalty.
Now, we shall discuss the first aspect which is the historical development. The
Apache Software started with a lot of voluntary contributions made by a lot of people on
behalf of the group and was based on a public domain software written at the University of
Illinois. There are three versions of licenses, namely AL 1.0, AL 1.1 and AL 2.0 up to current
point.11 The first version was the original license which only applies to older versions of
Apache packages and the second version which was approved by the ASF in 2000 had
changed the 'advertising clause' in section 3 of the first version where derived products are
only required to include attribution in their documentation but not in their advertising
materials. The third version was adopted by the ASF in January of 2004. The license stated
the aims as below; to make the license easier for usage of non-ASF projects, to improve
compatibility with General Public License, GPL-based software, to allow the license to be
comprised by reference instead of being listed in every file, to explain the license on
contributions, to request a patent license on contributions that inescapably infringe a
contributor's own patents, to decrease the number of frequently asked questions and to move
comments about Apache and other passed-down attribution notices outside the license terms.
It must be noted that all packages distributed by The Apache Software Foundation are
licensed under the Apache license unless otherwise stated. 12 This software is even said to be a
self-documented patent and copyright licensing terms, therefore, these term can be used
almost by everyone in the world.
Secondly, we shall take a look at the licensing conditions of AL 2.0. This license has nine
parts, which are the definitions for all terms relevant in this license; grant of the copyright
license which has been discussed; grant of the patent license which applies only to patent
claims; redistribution and the conditions of distribution; submission of contribution;
trademarks and exceptions to get this trademark; the disclaimer for the warranty under this
license; limitation of liability of damages under this license; and addition accepting warranty

11 The Apache Software Foundation, 'Licenses' (apache.org, 2012)

<http://www.apache.org/licenses/> accessed 29 July 2014.
12 The Apache Software Foundation, 'Apache License, Version 2.0 (current)' (apache.org,
2012) <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> accessed 29 July 2014.

and liability posed on the creators.13 Since part of this assignment is relating with copyright,
there are a few important features that we would like to highlight under terms and conditions
for this software license; firstly, "work" means work of authorship, either in object or source
form that is available under this License, as shown by the copyright notice that is attached in
or included to this work. Secondly, the grant of the copyright license shall be taken note as
well. Subject to terms and conditions of the license, each contributor grants to the consumer a
perpetual, worldwide, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce,
royalty-free, prepare derivative works of, publicly perform, publicly display, sublicense, and
distribution of work and these derivative works are in object or source form.14
Thirdly, the usage of such license can be found in the market. The preference of Android
Open Source Project in using this software license proved the reliability of this license. In
addition, the majority software in android is also licensed with the Apache 2.0.15
On the other hand, the Mozilla Public License is a free, and detailed open source software
license maintained and developed by Mozilla Foundation. It is recognised as a hybridisation
of General Public License (GNU) and modified BSD license, Berkeley Software Distribution
License that aims to balance the open source developers and concerns of proprietary. It has
gone through two major revisions, to the most recent version of 2.0 with the goals of better
compatibility with other licenses and greater simplicity.
Similarly with AL 2.0, we shall look into the first aspect which is the historical
development of this license. Mitchell Baker wrote the first version of the MPL, 1.0, in 1998
which at the same time he wrote Netscape Public License (NPL). Surprisingly, MPL 1.0 had
obtained higher popularity level than NPL which later even being granted approval from
Open Source Initiative.16 Within a year, Baker and the Mozilla Organization made some
13 Appendix 1.
14 The Apache Software Foundation, 'Apache License, Version 2.0' (apache.org, 2012)
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> accessed 29 July 2014.
15 Android, 'Licenses ' (android.com, 2011) <http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html>
accessed 29July 2014.
16 Rowan Wilson, 'The Mozilla Public License V 1.1 - An Overview' (oss-watch.ac.uk, 14 May
2012) <http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/mpl> accessed 29 July 2014.
5

changes and came out with a minor update in version 1.1. 17 This update was done through an
open process which took both comments from individual and institutional contributors into
consideration. The primary aims were to make clear terms on patents and to permit multiple
licensing. This last characteristic was designed to promote cooperation with developers that
desired stricter licenses like the GPL.18 In early 2010, an open process for creating third
version of MPL, 2.0 began. For the next 21 months, the MPL was changed to be clearer,
easier to apply, and also achieve compatibility with GPL and Apache licenses. 19 Final draft
was being released on the third day in January, 2012.
Secondly, we shall examine the conditions of the license regarding to copyright. Firstly,
Section 1.7 states that a larger work means work that combines covered software with some
other material and it must be in a combined file.20 Secondly, Section 2.1(a) states that each
creator grants the public a royalty free, world-wide and non exclusive license under
respective intellectual property rights (such as copyright) by the creator to reproduce, use,
make available, display, modify, distribute, perform, and exploit the creations, either on
unmodified basis, with some modifications, or as a part of larger work.21
Thirdly, this software is the license for popular web browsers, such as Mozilla Firefox and
Mozilla Thunderbird. Besides, it has also been used by Adobe for their Flex product.22

17 Frank Hecker, 'Mozilla at One: A Look Back and Ahead' (mozilla.org, 2 April 1999) <http://wwwarchive.mozilla.org/mozilla-at-one.html> accessed 29 July 2014.
18 Mozilla Foundation, 'NPL VERSION 1.0M FAQ' (mozilla.org, 2009) <http://wwwarchive.mozilla.org/MPL/NPL-1.0M-FAQ.html> accessed 29 July 2014.
19 Mozilla Foundation, ' Upgrading a project from MPL 1.1 to MPL 2.0' (mozilla.org, 2014)
<https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/Revision-FAQ.html#why-should-i-upgrade> accessed 29 July
2014.
20 Mozilla Public License Version 2.0 2012.
21 Mozilla Public License Version 2.0 2012.
22 Mozilla, 'Mozilla Public License' (mozilla.org, 2012) <https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/>
accessed 29 July 2014.

Let us look at some additional information on the application of this license. For contributors
that intent to use this license, they must add a header from a clause exhibit A of this license
to each of the source code file in their project. Additional notices of ownership of copyright
can also be added in the file. Besides, this license can also be combined with the BSD license
code in a same programme, for example, in software that is used to decode videos in Firefox.
In conclusion, both licenses have achieved certain level of popularity since it solves
the problem of paying for the license itself by individuals or companies. It can be derived that
the future of these two licenses and all open source licenses will be brighter and better.

Compare and Contrast Both of the Licenses

The Apache license is a software license written by Apache Software Foundation
which allows the all users of this software the ultimate freedom to use this software as it is
free. The Mozilla Public License is a free, and detailed open source software license which
maintained and developed by Mozilla Foundation.23 The Apache License 2.0 was published in
2004 while Mozilla Public License was published 2 years earlier, 2012. The Apache license is
governed by ASF, The Apache Software Foundation while the Mozilla Public License is

23 Mozilla Foundation, 'Mozilla Public License' (mozilla.org, 2012)

<https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/> accessed 29 July 2014.
7

approved by GNU General Public License and modified BSF, Berkeley Software Distribution
License.24
To compare their similarities, both open source software licenses have adopted the
latest version of licenses which are Apache License 2.0 (AL 2.0) & Mozilla Public License
2.0 (MPL 2.0) respectively. Secondly, their disclaimers of warranty are both on an as is
basis. Thirdly, both of the licences limitation of liability is similar as stated in the terms and
conditions of both licenses; any contributor will be liable for damages if he distributes
covered software even if the contributor has been informed of the possibility of such
damages. The fourth similarity of both licenses would be the definition of the copyright
owner. For AL 2.0, contributor means licensor which also means owner of copyright and
any individual or legal entity incorporated within the work while in MPL 2.0, contributor
means individual that creates, conduces to the making of, or owns the covered software.
Fifthly, both license notices under AL 2.0 and MPL 2.0 are not allowed to be modified or
altered. Sixthly, there are six actions which both licenses permitted, namely modification,
commercial use, distribution, private use, patent grant and sublicensing to third parties. 25
Sixthly, it is also clearly stated in both licenses that under the terms and conditions that there
are no trademarks, service marks or logos grant. 26 27 It is also important to note that MPL 2.0
is compatible with AL 2.0 which makes code reuse and redistribution easier.28
Next, we shall look into some minor aspects which both licenses are alike. About the
proprietary software linking, both licenses allow this. 29 The allowed action here refers to
linking or closed sourced applications with applications licensed under the licenses.
24 The Apache Software Foundation, 'Apache License, Version 2.0' (apache.org, 2012)
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> accessed 30 July 2014.
25 GitHub, 'Licenses' (choosealicense.com, 2014) <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/> accessed 31
July 2014.
26 Open Source Initiative, 'Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL-2.0)' (opensource.org, 2004)
<opensource.org/licenses/MPL-2.0> accessed 29 July 2014.
27 Open Source Initiative, 'Apache License, Version 2.0' (opensource.org, 2004)
<http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0> accessed 29 July 2014.
28 Mozilla Foundation, 'About MPL 2.0: Revision Process and Changes FAQ' (Mozilla.org, 1
February 2012) <https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/Revision-FAQ.html> accessed 31 July 2014.
8

Regarding the approval of Free Software Foundation,30 Open Source Initiative,31 Debian32 and
Fedora Project,33 both licenses have obtained the above mentioned approvals. Both of them
are not granted approval by Copyfree Initiative.34 Last but not least, both licenses include
original licenses for the public use.
However, there are also significant differences between these two licenses. The
Apache license stated that this software can be used for a lot of purpose such as to distribute,
to modify, and to give out modified versions of this software. In addition, the modified
version allows the submission of contributions to clarify the license and patent license is
required in order to infringe the creators own patent. On the other hand, the MPL 2.0 is
weaker compare to the AL 2.0 on the part of protection database. It is because it only protects
the original work.35 For instance, the work includes special code in the program which
performs all the functions in a different context.
The second difference is that MPL 2.0 has a better compatibility with other licenses and
greater simplicity. It allows the covered code to be incorporated into projects under a specific
set of other secondary FOSS licenses, Free and Open-Source Software Licenses. Thus, it
29 Zack Rusin, 'Open Source Licenses' (Web Archieve, 2011)
<http://web.archive.org/web/20110520072142/http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licen
ses_summary.html> accessed 29 July 2014.
30 GNU Operating System, 'Various Licenses and Comments about Them' (gnu.org, 2014)
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html> accessed 29 July 2014.
31 Open Source Initiative, 'Popular Licenses' (Opensource. org, 2014)
<http://opensource.org/licenses/> accessed 29 July 2014.
32 Debian, 'License information' (debian.org, 2014) <http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/>
accessed 29 July 2014
33 Tom 'spot' Callaway, 'Good Licenses' (The Fedora Project, 2014)
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing> accessed 29 July 2014.
34 The Copyfree Initiative, 'Copyfree: standard > rejected' (copyfree.org, 2014)
<http://copyfree.org/standard/rejected> accessed 29 July 2014.
35 Mozilla Foundation, 'Get to Know Mozilla' (mozilla.org, 2014) <https://www.mozilla.org/enUS/about/> accessed 30 July 2014.
9

expands compatibility of software that it covers. In contrast, AL 2.0 became incompatible

with the General Public License as compared to the MPL 2.0 which provides a better
compatibility.36 The previous version of the Apache License was based on the Berkeley
Software Distribution license which was compatible. However, the restriction in version 2.0
that terminates the grant of patent rights if the licensee sues over patent infringement as the
restriction is not present in the General Public License version 2.0. 37 From this, it is clear that
AL 2.0 is incompatible as the code licensed under the license cannot be combined with GNU
GPL 2.0.
Thirdly, we shall see whether redistributing of the code with changes is allowed.
Redistributing of the code with changes is an act of redistributing a modified application or
library based on the application or library licensed under the given license. For AL 2.0, it is
allowed generally as long as the word "Apache" is not used in the contributors' work.
Conversely, MPL 2.0 restricts it only under MPL.
Next, we shall discuss some minor differences for both licenses. The fourth difference
would be on the general function; AL 2.0 is a permissive license that offers express grant of
patent rights from contributors to users while MPL 2.0 is a compromise between the
permissive BSD license and the reciprocal GPL license. 38 Fifthly, the changes which took
place in the process of usage for both licenses would be unlike; for AL 2.0, significant
changes will be made to the code while for MPL 2.0, disclosure of source code will took
place when distributing the software. Lastly, the including of sources is available in MPL 2.0
but absent in AL 2.0. In contrast, the state changes can be found in AL 2.0 but not present in
MPL 2.0.
In short, the similarities of both licenses seem to be more than the differences; there
are similarities compared to six differences. Although it may not be the complete comparison,
we can still arrive at a conclusion that two of these licenses share more commonalities.
36 The Apache Software Foundation, 'Apache License, Version 2.0' (apache.org, 2012)
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html> accessed 29 July 2014.
37 GNU Operating System, 'GNU General Public License, version 2' (gnu.org, 2014)
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html> accessed 30 July 2014.
38 GitHub, 'Licenses' (choosealicense.com, 2014) <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/> accessed 31
July 2014.
10

The Compatibility of Two Selected Licences with the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987
Apache License is a license that allows people to use the software. One can simply use the
software for commercial use, to modify the software, to distribute the software, to sublicense
it to anyone, to place warranty and for private use as well without the needs of paying for the
license of such software. However, those benefits given are subject to terms and conditions.
Section 4 of the Apache License states that; if the contributor is going to distribute the code,
such contributor must include all the legal notices or license. While ss.7 and 8 state that in
return for all these benefits, the user is not allowed to sue the owner for damages if any
damages caused by the code for example if there is a bug in the code that destroys the
computer.39
While on the other hand, the Mozilla Public License is a license that allows the
contributor the freedoms to use the software but it is subject to term and condition, that is, the
contributor must distribute the original source code alongside with the modified version.
Similar to the Apache License, it grants people the freedom to use it commercially, to modify
it, to distribute it, to sublicense it, to place warranty and for private use as well. 40 Both the
licenses do not allow the contributors to use the trademark under the licences.41
First, we shall examine whether two of this licenses are protected under the Act. Both
licenses are computer programs that grant the contributor license so that they can use the
license freely. According to the interpretation in s 3 of Copyright Act 1987, literary work
includes (h) computer program. Thus, the Apache License and the Mozilla Public License,
which are computer programs, can be considered as literary work. Subsequently, it is stated in
s 7(1) (a) that literary works shall be eligible for copyright. 42 Hence, it is reasonable to say

39 The Apache Software Foundation, 'Apache License, Version 2.0 Terms and Conditions for Use'
(apache.org, 2003) <http://xml.apache.org/xindice/license.pdf> accessed 25 July 2014.
40 Rosen, 'The Mozilla Public License' (rosenlaw.com, 2004) <http://www.rosenlaw.com/pdffiles/Rosen_Ch07.pdf> accessed 25 July 2014.
41 Kevin Verse, 'Mozilla Public License 2.0 ' (tl;dr legal, 2014)
<https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2.0-%28mpl-2%29> accessed 25 July 2014.
11

that both the licenses are protected under the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987 therefore they
are compatible.
The second question on compatibility is whether by granting the contributors freedom
to use these two licenses are compatible with the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987? To solve
this question, we have to first look at s 25(2) (a) & (b), which states that when copyright is
given in a work, no one can do any presentation of the work under a name other than the
authors name and any modification of the work that affects the authors reputation is not
allowed without the authorization and consent of the author.43 However, modifications would
be allowed if it is with the consent of the author by license. It is stated in s 25(3) that if a
person is authorized under a license to publish, reproduce or communicate to the public, that
person is allowed to make modifications to the work provided that the modifications are
necessary.
Hence, by looking at s 25(2)&(3), the Apache License and Mozilla Public License are
compatible with the Malaysian Copyright Act as the authors of these two licenses allowed
public to use the licenses, to modify it, to distribute it, to sublicense it to anyone. In addition,
benefits of these two licenses are with the consent of the author since attachment of original
license alongside with such modification or distribution is necessary. Both licenses even offer
the original literary works free of charge regardless the purpose of usage, be it individuals or
companies.44

45

However, both the licenses require the contributors to include a copy of the

license in the case of redistribution and to provide clear attribution for any distributions or
modifications that includes both these licenses.

42 Copyright Act 1987.

43Copyright Act 1987.
44 Mozilla Foundation, 'Q5: I want to use software which is available under the MPL. What do I
have to do?' (mozilla.org, 3 March 2014) <https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html> accessed 31
July 2014.
45 The Apache Software Foundation, 'Is there a fee for using Apache software in a commercial
product?' (Apache.org, 2012) <http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html> accessed 31 July
2014.
12

The third question to examine compatibility would be; whether copyright of the
license is vested in author or contributor. S 26(1) states that copyright conferred shall vested
initially in the author.46 Although the contributors are allowed to reproduce or make
modifications to the software, but initially the copyright is still vested in the original author
himself and not the contributors who modified the software. Thus, the contributors are not
allowed to sue if they encounter any damages caused to them by the software. For instance,
in Mozilla Public License, contributors who merely downloaded the software shall not be
considered as the exclusive owner.47 Similarly, another license instils the exclusive right of
ownership in the original author; the contributor in Apache License has no right to call the
modified code as Apache.48 They can however use the phrase such as based on Apache or
powered by Apache as the right to call the code Apache is vested within the author itself.
Hence, both licenses' provisions on ownership are compatible with the Act.
Fourthly, s 27(3) states that license to do an act shall not have effect unless in it is in
writing.49 In the current situation, both the Apache License and Mozilla Public License are in
writing, thus following the principle in s 27(3), two of them are compatible with the
Malaysian Copyright Act 1987 since there are both distributed or transmitted in writing to the
public at large.
Lastly, s 27H states that licenses relating to copyright means the literary and musical
works which cover works of more than one author, which include, the reproducing,
communicating and distributing the work to the public. 50 According to the interpretation in s
3, both the Apache License and Mozilla Public License are computer programs which can be
included as literary work. Thus, following the wording of s 27H, the features of

46 Copyright Act 1987.

47 Mozilla Foundation, 'Mozilla Public License 2.0 FAQ' (mozilla.org, 2014)
<https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html#use%20Q20> accessed 25 July 2014.
48 The Apache Software Foundation, 'The Apache Software Foundation' (apache.org, 2012)
<http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Name-changes> accessed 25 July 2014.
49 Copyright Act 1987.
50 Copyright Act 1987.
13

redistributing, reproducing and communicating the work to the public in the Apache License
and Mozilla Public License justify them as licenses relating to copyright.
After comparing the sections in Malaysian Copyright Act 1987 with the two licences,
both Apache License and Mozilla Public License are compatible since these two licences
fulfilled the conditions in s 3, s 7(1)(a), s 25(2), s 25 (3), s 26(1), s 27(3) and s 27H of the
Act.

Conclusion
Up to this point, it is assumed that one understands the rough idea of open source software,
the distinctive features of Apache License 2.0 and Mozilla Public License 2.0, the key
similarities and differences of both selected licenses and the compatibility of foreign-created
licenses with Malaysia Copyright Act. One crucial question pops out; whether the software is
ultimately advantageous like what had been discussed earlier? Of course, the importance of
such software is undeniable as it resulted in savings for &60 billion annually to consumers in
2008.51 At the same time, this report by the Standish Group states that such savings actually
equals to the monetary loss in proprietary software industry.
Being a product which constitutes 6 percent of the world market for software,52 open source
software has both advantages and disadvantages which will affect the market easily.53 First,
the product is free; second, the source code allows users to do anything they like with it
51 R Rothwell, 'Creating wealth with free software' [2008] Free Software Magazine.
52 R Rothwell, 'Creating wealth with free software' [2008] Free Software Magazine.
14

which results in improvements to the software without investing money in conducting

research. Third, the open source software can also be distributed freely, either in original or
modified form. Fourth, it is possible to modify and enhance the software for personal
requirements which is impossible to be done with proprietary system. Lastly, users who use
such software are not restricted to certain vendor's system that only works with their other
systems.
On the other hand, they are few disadvantages of such software which surprisingly constitutes
the converse of the advantages mentioned above. First, the software tends to evolve more
towards developers' desires rather than public users since the product is free. Thus, the
product might be less user-friendly. Second, the source codes are too complicated for normal
person to understand, not even to modify it. Hence, doing anything with the software may not
be the reality. Third, the free distribution is not under any particular official monitoring thus
even after modification the quality is uncertain. Fourth, the openness for modification and
enhancement indicates that malicious users can potentially misuse it. Lastly, non-restriction
to particular vendor's system carries the risks of relying on its community of users to fix all
problems. Since no particular person is appointed for the codes, it is uncertain whether the
codes are in good condition without bugs. Users might bear the risk of using problematic
software until someone solves the problem.
All in all, open source software is still an indispensable asset for all programmers and
normal users. Despite the great savings it has contributed, it is also a strong supporting for the
concept of free market. Hence, the disadvantages shall be disregarded as minor side effects of
such software. To further strengthen the existence of open source software, we may refer to
the official statement of the United Space Alliance, which manages the computer systems for
the International Space Station (ISS). "We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux
because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable -- one that would give us
in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust, or adapt, we could," said Keith Chuvala of
the United Space Alliance, which runs opsLAN for NASA.54 This clearly illustrates the
distinctive features of open source software; Linux successfully attracts the users even as
professional as United State Alliance.
53 R Bridge, 'Open Source Software The Advantages & Disadvantages' (entrepreneurhandbook.co,
4 November 2013) <http://www.entrepreneurhandbook.co.uk/open-source-software/> accessed 29
July 2014.
15

54 J Gunter, 'International Space Station to boldly go with Linux over Windows' (The Telegraph, 2013)
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10049444/International-Space-Station-to-boldly-go-with-Linuxover-Windows.html> accessed 29 July 2014.

16