Open source software: A realistic and pragmatic approach
Glitch art, more than most disciplines, asks questions of the software and hardware it uses in very specific ways, what happens if I misuse this, how do I break that, why can’t I install the software I want to use on this or that device, or to put it more simply “what assumptions about my tools have I accepted without questioning?” It is obsessed by file formats, codecs and the systems they are embedded in, the stuff that our digital existence is built from. These questions are also relevant to other disciplines within digital art.
Existing primarily online Glitch art relies on an open internet to exist and propagate through the sharing of ideas, techniques, scripts and opportunities. Accessibility and inclusion is at its core, denying the standard wisdom that you need the latest most expensive hardware or software product to create valid work with.
This was written on a modern, open-source, fully libre, operating system (a Devuan respin using the linux-libre kernel) , on hardware I have modified myself ( a 4th gen intel i7S running on a thinkcentre E73 and a 6th gen intel i5 running on a Fujitsu lifebook E546) which most standard thinking would state is outdated and ready for e-waste. They aren’t considered modern enough to run windows 11 though if I wanted to I could use an open source tool like Rufus, to create a version of win 11 which bypasses windows 11 requirements like TPM 2, an online account or a specific generation of processor.
Open source software empowers the user to make choices which enable access and inclusion, my own view of proprietary software and hardware is that it disables and monetises the user trapping them in software as a service subscriptions and updates which remove functionality and increase bloat and obsolescence.
This is my position as an artist it may be very different to yours but certain themes will be common.
Open-ness
As Wikipedia summarizes it, "Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, modify and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose."
This is a concise summary of the principles set out in the Open Source Definition (OSD), maintained by the Open Source Initiative. The OSD is a formal set of criteria that software licenses must satisfy to be recognized as open source, and it has become the foundation for evaluating and approving open-source licenses. If you're interested in reading the complete definition, it can be found on the Open Source Initiative website here https://opensource.org/osd
Open source code means that a program can be independently inspected to verify that it is doing what it says it does, as you have access to the source code, not just an opaque binary. It also means that if there is a bug in the program its going to be possible at some point for someone to read that source code to find and fix that bug, improving the software for everyone.
Open source software is developed collaboratively often by unpaid maintainers though some large organisations such as Nextcloud , Proton mail, Collabora, stability.ai, Framasoft and others contribute financially to projects that are seen as important.
Now just to clarify, there is a distinction between open-source software (as defined by the open source initiatives OSD) , which is distributed under licences such as the Apache Licence 2.0, the GNU General Public Licence (GPL) or the MIT Licence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
and more on Foss Licensing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-software_license
and the free software foundations definition of ‘free software’ which defines software as free when it satisfies these four conditions also known as the four freedoms:
0) The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
1) The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
2) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
3) The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
In practice there's a great deal of overlap between open-source software and free software. Many of the licences you'll encounter, including the GPL and MIT Licence, are recognised by both organisations. The main difference is one of philosophy rather than day-to-day use, but whatever licence a project uses it's worth reading it so you understand what rights and obligations each licence grants the user.
In glitch art and in general ‘the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.’ and point 3 in the free software foundations definition is important as something like ffmpeg say which as well as being a truly useful and important cross platform command line tool for manipulating video, sound and images is also reused in open source applications such as handbrake, Kdenlive, audacity sound editor and parts of it are embedded within vlc video player , it can read and write multiple formats , some proprietary, some not but the important point being that you can use it for free and modify as you wish ( as I have done) and not have to pay licensing fees to use it or its codecs
Closed-source software
Contrast this with the definition of closed source or proprietary software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_and_closed-source_software
Trusted software, app stores, age verification and more
This business model is furthered by changing the model of the operating system from one where the user could install what they wanted from where they wanted using their own judgement as to safety or otherwise, to one where walled gardens of approved software such as the Microsoft store, Google play or Apples app store make it increasingly more convenient for the user to install software from ‘trusted sources’ and less convenient to install from other sources. While these systems are often presented as improving security, they also shift more control over software distribution from the user to the platform owner.
This can have the knock-on effect of narrowing user choice, making it harder for smaller independent developers to reach audiences, and reinforcing existing software ecosystems and so-called 'industry standards'
These blocks on running what you want on your own device can be circumvented but this is becoming more and more difficult and not without consequences.
See this https://f-droid.org/2026/07/01/adv-malware.html
and this https://keepandroidopen.org/
and this Apple blocks sideloading unverified apps https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6304352/apple-removes-ability-to-run-unsigned-apps-in-macos-15-1
As an example Googles Chrome browser is introducing changes which will reduce the effectiveness of some ad blockers. As an artist working with long form video that I publish on YouTube this is a real problem as chrome is the dominant browser. I don’t want the continuity of something I’ve made being interrupted every five minutes by whatever an ad-company chooses to show. As an online artist I can either accept this friction or move my work elsewhere, but this then brings up questions of visibility, reach and who controls the platforms we use - and why, which is a related argument for another day.
https://cybernews.com/security/chrome-update-disables-adblockers-manifest-v3/
And then of course there is age verification where vendors of operating systems may soon be required to verify or record aspects of a users age so that the device can then communicate that information to app stores and only allow age appropriate software to be installed on that device – which begs the question how much control of your own device do you really have ?
Politics
It occurred to me whilst writing this that I’ve been giving a variation of this talk either in conversation or in presentations since I started making glitch art, with a hostile Govt. in America openly threatening European values this conversation is more relevant than ever, as much of the software and hardware you as artists use will be controlled by American corporations.
Microsft blocks ICC accounts https://www.heise.de/en/news/Criminal-Court-Microsoft-s-email-block-a-wake-up-call-for-digital-sovereignty-10387383.html
Claude fable blocked outside of US https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c932g3v3e13o
E.U digital soverignty https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-tech-sovereignty
The US cloud act https://wire.com/en/blog/cloud-act-eu-data-sovereignty
“ The CLOUD Act overrides local data protection laws whenever criminal investigations involve U.S. interests. Its scope is extraterritorial, meaning it applies regardless of where the data is physically stored, as long as the service provider is based in the United States. It grants U.S. authorities the power to access personal, corporate or even classified data with a warrant, without prior notice to affected users or European regulators.” which can conflict with European GDPR regulations and given the current political situation in the US is ripe for misuse.
Collaboration
Using a common set of tools that anyone can access makes it a lot easier to collaborate, especially when exchanging files to be worked on. The argument can be made that proprietary software has created industry standards that everyone can work with but if the software to do that is prohibitively expensive then that software ( or hardware ) is exclusionary, the very opposite of what art should be , open source software and open source standards allow all of us to collaborate regardless of income, class or often hardware.
Or to sum up the last two points as the Libreplanet mission statement says: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/LibrePlanet:About/Mission_Statement
‘As media and technology mediates how we experience and interact with the world, the private owners of software, knowledge, and culture have control over us. With a strong commitment to free software and free cultural works, we work against the exploitation, domination, and oppression enabled by private ownership of technology, media, and communication. While free software and free culture are radical stances against one form of oppression, we acknowledge that there are systemic structures of control embedded in our society which permeate our movement. Therefore, we maintain a Code of Conduct which takes those into account.’
Our vision is to free the world from technological and legal barriers for all software and cultural works to be free as defined by the GNU Project and Definition of Free Cultural Works.’
My view’s on all of this are just that, I take a particular stance as an artist to use only open-source software and also to release my work under a creative commons licence, some of you may not be comfortable with doing that, but it is an option.
The Convenience trap
Most of the software I use is cross-platform. I can and do use the same tools on macOS, Windows, or Linux. That matters because when I show someone a technique, I need to know they can reproduce it on whatever computer they already own. I don't have to tell them they need to buy a particular operating system or spend hundreds of euro on proprietary software before they can even begin, fostering inclusivity and increasing accessibility.
Some of you will probably be thinking, "But this isn't industry-standard software."
My response is that the very idea of "industry-standard software" has become one of the most successful marketing strategies ever devised. It encourages dependence on proprietary tools, proprietary file formats, and increasingly, perpetual subscription fees. Once an industry is locked into a particular ecosystem, the software company has a captive market and very little incentive to reduce prices or improve the user experience.
You will own nothing and be happy
Adobe's subscription model is a good example. You no longer own the tools you depend on—you rent them indefinitely. Stop paying and, in many cases, you lose access to the software that created your own work.
Those same corporations have also spent the last few years scraping web content to feed into A.I models to capture the content that we create to monetise for themselves ( ironically built with open-source tools) and cut the artist out of the equation, using and paying for these tools increasingly reinforces the very business model that marginalises artists.
Open source software offers a fundamentally different relationship. It puts the user, rather than the corporation, in control. The software can be used, studied, modified, shared, and preserved. It allows knowledge to be exchanged freely instead of being mediated through licensing agreements and recurring payments.
I don't reject proprietary software because it is technically inferior. I reject the business model because I believe it concentrates power in the hands of a few corporations at the expense of artists, educators, and the wider public.
Cost
Open source software generally comes at no cost other than downloading and learning how a program or operating system works or how to install it, for an artist wanting to try out new techniques and ways of working or for a student/artist on a budget cost of access to hardware and software can be a big barrier, but if there is an alternative open source program which works just as well and is free why not use it ?
Question 1.
Ask yourself this basic question when deciding on a particular piece of software for a particular purpose:
‘is there an open source alternative?’
then ask -
Question 2,3 and 4
‘ Will it do what I want it do, can it read and write the file formats that I need it to write, is their a user manual or user forum’
Question 5
Will it work on my operating system and my hardware?
Question 6
If I can’t replace the big thing can I replace some small things
Pragmatism
There is no one size fits all solution but we can make small shifts, re-examine why we are storing things in places like google cloud , could we store more files locally , run programs locally rather than online etc.
I'm not suggesting everyone should abandon the software they rely on. If Unreal Engine or TouchDesigner enables you to make work you couldn't otherwise make, then that's a perfectly rational decision. What I'm suggesting is that we become more conscious of where we have genuine choice—and where we've simply accepted the default.
The where
I’m not going to cover this too much in depth as searching the internet for software is a pretty obvious thing, though there are pitfalls as most of you probably know, and I’d recommend using a projects website rather than blindly following links to dodgy software aggregator sites that use deceptive layouts to trick you into downloading malware or paid for versions of software.
If you're looking for an open-source replacement for a particular commercial application, Open Source Alternatives has a useful searchable database of software organised by category. https://opensourcealternative.to/
The FSF ( free software foundation ) has useful resource pages of free software https://www.fsf.org/resources/
For windows if you are still on windows 10 I’d recommend using the chocolatey package manager, its web page has a handy package search function, for windows 11 there is the newer winget system.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/package-manager/winget/
For Mac os I'd strongly suggest installing homebrew https://brew.sh/ the website also has a handy package search function.
For linux use your package manager of choice
Many of the most interesting creative tools are hosted on GitHub, GitLab or Codeberg. To make the most of these you'll probably want to install Git—another open-source project that has become something of an industry standard. Some projects will also require a little familiarity with compiling software, creating Python virtual environments or basic scripting. Don't let that put you off. Most of us learnt those skills because there was something we wanted to make, and they're well worth acquiring if you're interested in developing your own creative tools. Much of my own work relies heavily on Python and scripting.
That being said, this a quick overview of some options
Green
Things where the open-source alternative is genuinely excellent.
FFmpeg
ImageMagick
Blender
OBS
Krita
Kdenlive
Audacity
VSCodium
Git-bash
Blender (obviously)
Sumatra Pdf (windows only though)
Amber — Mixed
Where it depends on workflow.
GIMP vs Photoshop
LibreOffice vs Microsoft Office
Inkscape vs Illustrator
Some people can switch tomorrow.
Others can't.
And that's okay.
Red — Not yet
Things where, for many artists, proprietary software still has capabilities that are genuinely difficult to replace.
TouchDesigner though it might be worthwhile looking at puredata https://puredata.info/
Unreal Engine (although its source-available model makes it a more nuanced case) see https://www.unrealengine.com/ue-on-github or see if godot might work for you https://godotengine.org/
Certain specialist CAD or media tools ( though freecad and meshlab are making good strides it comes down to file formats) https://www.freecad.org/index.php?lang=en
