Slashdot Mirror
The Semantics of Free Software vs. Open Source
An anonymous reader writes "As the end-of-year technology round-ups begin, LinuxWorld's Kevin Bedell notes that in his opinion no useful distinction is served any longer by preserving the two separate terms 'open source software' and 'free software'. One interesting sidelight: Bedell says that 'one of the leaders of the open source movement' wrote to him in an exchange they had on this topic: 'The distinction between 'open source' and 'free software' is not technical; it's the same code and licenses. Nor is it social; it's the same developers. It's strictly one of attitude - are we focused on moralism and changing peoples' thoughts (free software) or on results and changing peoples' behavior (open source)?'"
I've seen open source software that wasn't free. There definitely needs to be a distinction.
More
I could be wrong, but IMO, they aren't the same licenses. The GPL and BSD licenses differ quite a bit.
I thought the difference between free and open source software was that with open source you can actually download, view, and/or modify the source code while free software, such as skype or adobe acrobat reader, wouldn't allow such practices.
I tend to agree, there being little distinction between the two. I'm interested to hear more on the subject when I go to linux world in Feb.
I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on disk somewhere.
For many people "free" suggests poor quality as in "you get what you pay for". If you tell your boss that you want everyone to start migrating from Microsoft products to "free software", chances are they won't be too excited about the prospect. You tell them that you want to migrate to "open source software" and they'll at least give that a listen.
It's good for there to be compitition, just like Intel/AMD; and I welcome the fact that this industry is big enough for 2 groups.
I suppose there isn't a whole lot of what I consider 'freeware' left, though, so it may be time to rethink my vocabulary.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
opensource is ALWAYS free software (both free as in beer and free as in freedom)...
free software is not allways opensource software, the author may not want to release the sourcecode...
fropenware
You know you have a problem when you spend more time discussing licensing and semantic issues than doing real work!
Here in the corporate world, the term 'open source' works better than 'free software'. The 'free' software (in upper management's mind) means questionable quality and no support, while 'open source' means that there might be some support available. Sure, it sounds crazy, but in big corporations they are used to spending good money for software, and the idea of 'free' is slow to catch on. Still, we have had lots of success getting 'free' and 'open source' products in the door, but we had to move slow and keep it quiet at first.
Yes, and a square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle can't be a square. Maybe I'm missing your point...
"industry"? try "bazaar", or more accurately, "bazaar with no buyers".
I'm not trolling here -- in my eyes, there just isn't really much of an industry around free software. Those lucky few who have made a couple bucks tend to have had to do it in a service industry, like technical support or software piracy.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Now, back to the topic at hand...
Open Source packages that are sold (such as Enterprise versions of Linux a la SUSE or Xandros) prove that Open Source does not always mean freebies, though many have come to equate it with such a term.
This is particularly interesting because of the mindset. When I think of Open Source, I think of useful software that's free, but without detriments to my system (firefox or Open Office).
But when I think of free software, the first thing that pops into my mind is this spyware-supported trash that finds its way on to many unsuspecting user's pc's...something like Gator's auto complete software or Kazaa's file sharing p2p, and definately screensavers.
This has sadly corrupted my idea about what free software is.
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
Under the GPL you can still sell your Open Source software. Otherwise companies like Redhat, Suse, etc. and other Linux Distros would be out of buisness quite quickly. But, on the other hand, there is a large number of GPL software that is absolutely, no-strings-attached free. This is what's nice about the GPL. But, as noted earlier, there is freeware which isn't open source. Often times there will be a freeware version of a for-buy software. It comes back to the Closed-Source, Open-Source arguement.
As opposed to BSD'd "Open Source", where anyone can copy your product and sell it for half price (plus attribution).
So let's drop "free software" because it's ambiguous. HEY OW, put the pitchfork down.
Okay then, let's drop "open source". It came second and is superfluous. YOW, holster that sidearm!!
Seriously, there is truth in what he says, except I don't understand how he makes the distinction between "thoughts" and "behavior". Both movements seek to change both thoughts and behavior, but just with different slants.
I don't see any reason to unify them or anything like that. They both the reflect the same underlying realities about the economics of software. I find times when both terms are appropriate, depending to whom I'm talking to. If I'm talking to someone about saving money and gaining flexibility, I talk about "open source". If I'm consoling someone who just got sued for violating a software contract, I talk about the principles of "software freedom". It's all good.
The thing that bugs me the most though, is that people (RMS included) insist on creating this huge chasm between the two, when in reality the chasm exists between free/open software and proprietary EULAs and crap like that. THAT's what we should be focusing on instead of intellectual in-fighting.
Just make sure your software has a BSD or GPL license, and demand the same from software you use, and the world will be a better place. What more do you need to know?
Maybe RMS should have called it Emancipated Software.
RMS clearly explains why "Free Software" is his term of choice, and it has everything to do with changing behavior: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html
Thanks for the opportunity for a flamewar, though.
With a license like BSD you can always trust that if your software hits the big time you can cash on it. If, however, you go for GPL you've got to deal with all kinds of weird shit related to the source code. Most of the managers I know just don't want to know about such things, so in the end I usually recommend BSD license.
It really is the best of both worlds.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The difference is in the motivations:
Free Software is motivated by the moral need to create a Free Way to use computers -- to free software users from their "masters".
Open Source software is motivated by the practical advantages of the Open Source development process.
The Free Software movement is more idealist: "Don't use it if its not free, whether or not there are practical advantages".
The Open Source movement is more pragmatic, even at the cost of some Freedom: "Use whatever is better technically for your purpose, even if its not free".
Anyway... competition is good for
- Distros (Redhat vs Suse vs Debian)
- CPUs (Intel vs AMD vs Power vs Alpha(RIP))
- Politics (Republicrats vs Libertarians vs Green)
- Licenses (BSD vs Creative Commons vs GNU)
Competition is just as good for free/open source software.Remember the previous thread on the new GPL, where people were speculating if when Stallman, Moeglin, Lessig, etc retire from the FSF board - it's concievable a large corporation could take over the new board of the FSF and declare that GPL4 allows their corporation to profit from GPL4'd stuff. Having multiple organizations out there protects us from this problem. So long as the OSI exists, it'd be really hard for a new board to come up with a non-OSI-compatable GPL4.
I'm sorry, but I think it's utterly ridiculous. The two are not mutually inclusive and cannot be used interchangably.
Although all open source software is free by its very nature, it's ridiculous to try to make the reverse analogy that free software is also by default open source. There are a number of quality programs out there for which the source code is not freely available but the program itself is free of cost and in many cases limitations.
Web sites have been posted and we are all aware of many of them. I have not seen the source code to AdAware being made available, but I know that it is not only a high-quality piece of software, but it is also free from cost, whether hidden (adware) or explicit. We can all name multiple other products that are the same way.
If anyone confuses "free" with "cheap", they are only preventing themselves from experiencing some great products as long as they are aware of which "free" products really are free and which ones have hidden "costs", aka Kazaa.
It can also be argued that early Shareware programs, like Doom and the various Apogee games were free but not open source (at least back then). We could play the first chapter of those games as often as we wanted. They were indeed free but they at the time were most certainly not open source.
So, there is a strong distinction between "open source" and "free software". Just because one includes the other doesn't mean that it has to be the same in the other direction. To consider the two phrases to be synonymous is a ridiculous notion.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
I have corresponded with RMS and I have also
discussed the subject of software licensing
with an intellectual property attorney.
The intellectual property attorney told me
that it is only a matter of time until people
begin to assert the right to royalties for
code contributed to free software projects
that generates any income for anybody.
What Stallman wants is to forestall the
inevitable for as long as possible, and he is
impatient with people who knowingly or
otherwise pave the middleground between free
and commercial under the banner of Open Source,
creating a nice broad avenue for the lawyers
to drive their jags down.
This Bedell guy is a moron. It is obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence that OSS != Free in all cases. What an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has any.
But inherently flawed. Open Source software is usually Free, too, but sometimes it isn't. I can see how the two labels could be confusing (but not as confusing as free as in beer and free as in speech), but as long a free software is closed source or open source software is even occassionally not free, the distinction is still important.
All generalizations are bad.
While the author of this post means "free" as in freedom, liberty/libre, emancipation, etc. the general public will think free as in beer, gratis, no licensing fees.
At least in English-speaking countries.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The laugh I'm having is that it reminds me of Monty Python and the People's front of Judea vs. The Judean Peoples Front.
That said, I think should be enough....
what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
Actually as I understand the terms Free Software is a subset of Open Source software.
The definition is more restrictive, but in a way that keeps the code itself free for everybody.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Someone read "The Cathedral and the Bazzar"... but don't try to pass off the analogy as your own.
Open source imply that source code available freely for copy/examination/modification, but does not necessarily imply that the software itself (e.g. the resulting binary) is free for use without additional license/fee.
Conversely, free software imply that the software (i.e. binary) is free for use without licensing fee but the source code may or may not be available for copy/examination/modification without additional license/fee.
So, a software may be open source but not free (i.e. source code available for free, but software binary may not be used without additional fee -- not common, but I suppose, possible), or may be free but not open source (i.e. software available for free but binary not available), or may be both free and open source (e.g. LINUX, BSD, GNU stuff), or finally it may be neither free nor open source (i.e. proprietary software like Microsoft Windows).
If the OSI gets too much backing from greedy corporations, it could be influenced by their needs and start encouraging licenses designed more to divide-and-conquor the open source community than to work with it.(cough, Sun's OSI-approved license, cough)
So long as the FSF exists, it'd be hard for the OSI to sell out completely.
Similarly, if Stallman & buddies happily retire sometime in their old age and Microsoft plants became the next FSF board and try to say GPL-4 alllows GPL'd code to be used to make money only for MSFT - it's nice that the OSI will provide a valuable check&ballance for that possibility.
maybe we need a new term because free software can mean two things. That is why people keep on saying free as in beer and speech. If the originator of the term in question hadn't chosen an ambiguous term like free we wouldn't have this problem. I propose a new term that will clear all this up, lets say, liberal software. Thus we have three distinct categories which form a type of hierarchy.
Free Software: IE, Media player, linux, BSD, C# etc..
(software that does not cost money)
Open source: bsd, C#, Linux, etc.
(software that you can also see the source for)
Liberal Software: Linux, etc.
(all of the above and also politically defined as free/libre )
using i think Liberal or maybe libre carries a similar meaning as Free but distinguishes it from Free in a monetary sense.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
and we wonder why the general population is confused about open source software...
One thing that always irked me about the "official" definition of "open source" found here is that they put a bunch of restrictions of what "open source" is.
In other words, contrary to what most people think, something to which the code is available and can be modified legally for your own personal needs is not necessarily "open source" by the definiton.
For example, CircleMud - a popular free MUD engine to which the code is available - is not "open source" by the official definition, even though anyone can grab the code and use it for their needs, as long as they don't make a profit from it (this is in the license). Such a clause prohibits the software from being "open source" by the official definiton, even if the source code is open - and there is no other appropriate name for such software! This is what bothers me the most - we can't just call it "open source" we must say "the code is available for download and use blah blah blah" instead of having a convenient name.
Come on, if the source code is open for anyone to download and modify, it should be "open source" - since that's what the name describes! Why attach some arbitrary hidden restrictions to the term, that are not easily apparent from the words themselves?
Kevin Beddell will be speaking at SCALE 3x on February 12th and 13th, 2005. SCALE will be held at the Los Angeles Convention Center in Los Angeles, CA. Kevin's topic this year will be: "The Case for Open Source/Closed Standards" Other speakrs you might want to check out are John "maddog" Hall, Larry McVoy (BitKeeper), and more. Check out the site for more info. PS For a free exhibit hall pass use the promo code "free" or for a large discount on full access pass use the code "newsp".
I could be wrong, but IMO, they aren't the same licenses. The GPL and BSD licenses differ quite a bit.
Both the BSD licenses and the GPL are free and open source licenses. That even includes the old BSD license with the advertising clause that was incompatible with the GPL.
But your thought is a good one (and correct) even if your example is flawed. A better example would be Apple's AAPL, which is an open source license that is neither free nor compatible with the GPL.
See http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.htmlfor an excellent overview of licenses and how they affect your freedom and/or protect you as the author.
Many Open Source licenses are not free (by either the FSF/GNU definition or the BSD Folks' definition), and clearly a distinction is both necessary and important. Anyone claiming otherwise quite obviously has an ulterior motive and agenda which they feel is furthered by obfuscating what is implied by a Free License and what is implied by an Open Source License, and that agenda certainly appears to be at odds with the free software community and a large part of the open source community.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
In addition, some research recently published by Eric Raymond has shown that "among software developers and in the technology trade press, use of the term 'open source' dominates use of the term 'free software' by 95%-5% or more."
From ESR's page: In this paper I take no position on what I believe should be the case or what terminology people should use, I simply report what is.
Right..... I could swear I saw ESR waxing poetic on the merits of "Open Source Software" over "Free Software" in Revolution OS.
He justifies these numbers with the comparison of the terms "Free Software" with "Open Source". He should have compared "Open Source Software" and "Free Software".
The "free" in "free software" means "libre", not "gratis". This has been pointed out many times already, yet some people still don't seem to understand the big difference.
All free software is open source (because its source code is available), but not all open source software is free.
It was a really good paper.
Lets just stick with the label that makes the most sense and is readily accepted without confusion. And so from this point on let it be known only as Open Source.
Sounds informative/interesting. Whether it's accurate, someone else will have to decide.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
Now you know why semantics are important. This is /., full of geeks and we still get it wrong. I don't know if the two need to be joined but we need to find some term that avoids the term "free".
It's not funny if I have to explain it.
It's not good marketing if you have to correct people everytime!
I don't think, Therefore I'm not.
This seems like a match between ESR and RMS, the way they're setting it up. Anyone else willing to pay-per-view for that event?
Is it really an attitude thing? According to Cathedral/Bazaar somewhere didn't people coin "Open Source" because a lot of people were being misled by the term "Free?" You know, like when you have to explain "free as in freedom" vs. "free as in beer." With "Open Source" you immediately get that the source code is open and infer that you can view code.
Then you split hairs with "how open is that source?" Is it BSD-style where I can do what I want with it or is it GPL style where I have to give it back along with the changes I made? Or is it "shared source" which means look but don't touch and only if you're willing to give up your firstborn?
True, one of the aspects between OSS and Free Software is the attitude, but there are clear differences. It seems that as XHTML is a subset of XML (or is that HTML subset of SGML?) "Free Software" is a subset of "Open Source."
Then again, what the hell do I know. I say cage match between ESR and RMS with Perens as ESR's manager and Linus as the impartial guest referee. That should decide it.
Blood flows free, hackers, blood flows free!!!
WRONG WRONG WRONG -- No wonder everyone's confused.
It could have something to do with language too.
There are things that are present in some language and not in another. And i tend to think that it has an effect on how people think.
For example:
In english there is no distinct word for free vs. free (beer vs. speech)
In russian there is no distinct word for house vs. house (home vs. building)
etc etc...
(Don't be rough on me - i'm sure there are special case words - but the average Joe or Ivan never uses them, and because of that probably don't grasp the full difference)
I used to suggest "unrestricted software", but someone was explaining why the GPL could be seen as "restrictive" last time I brought it up on Slashdot. I still think it's the least confusing English word to use to describe software-libre.
Then there's "freedom software", which I think is a bad term to start using. Idunno - how do you succinctly phrase "software which is guaranteed to let you do what you want as long as you let others to the same"?
Hey, if the Eskimos can manage with a bunch of words that all mean "snow" (variants on a theme), then certainly we can do the same with respect to "Open Source" and "Free Software".
In theory, one could sell software that had a license that you would have the source, but could not redistribute the source or give away the software for free.
Open vs Free would be the eternal debate among english speakers. The term Open Source was originally coined to avoid "free as in beer" interpretation.
I think the "free as in freedom" part is the most important thing, because it started all this, and IMHO it's the only thing that prevent us from going back to the dark ages. As I see it, Open Source terminology denies a little of that perspective.
However... this is only a problem in English... AFAIK all Latin based languages doesn't have this problem, for instance, in Argentina we say "Software Libre".
One "semantically correct" name is all we need. Specially if you have to convince (not confuse) your boss in five minutes.
Nobody cares about zealot infighting and semantics.
This type of crap is why many IT departments laugh at you if you mention linux or OSS as a solution.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I would suggest 'Freedom Software'. That way you can please both 'free as in libre' proponents and anti-French Bushies.
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
Notice the capitalization. Open Source does not necessarily create Free Software, even though the software may be free and Free Software is also by definition Open Source (the source is open). In neither case are the real proponents of the two movements concerned about price. RMS himself has even said you can charge for distribution of your software. So, when you say "free", mentally translate that to "Free"*, and you'll have things about right.
Your take on the Open Source movement is also not quite right. More correctly, it is, "Use whatever is better technically for your purposes so long as it's Open Source, even if it's not Free." That difference between Free and free bites again here. Your version makes it sound as though an Open Source proponent could advocate Microsoft Office (it's not free, and is often better technically for your purpose), but that will never happen because it's not Open Source.
* "Free" with a capital 'F' means, "the software can't be co-opted by non-Free entities (such as businesses), and any public changes made to the software due to its Open Source nature must be contributed back to the open and Free codebase." It also means that if you use Free Software in your project (the code from it, including linking to libraries -- this doesn't include building your software with other Free Software), you're now required to make your software Free if it's for anything other than personal consumption. Open Source, on the other hand, just means that the source is available. The BSD license is certainly open source, but it's not Free because companies can take BSD code, incorporate it in a commercial product, and not release the code to the commercial product. RMS doesn't like that. Pretty much anyone else doesn't give a shit. Well, unless you're talking about Slashdot ...
Do we have to have useless karma whoring like this? If you have something to say either reply to the article or reply to a post on what you want to say.
Replying to a first post is an obvious attempt at karma whoring
And back on topic - how the hell are you insightful? If you had listed WHY you thought spyware was free then maybe, but just saying "My idea of free software is corrupted" shows no insight in the slightest.
Anyway, my idea of open sores software is a bunch of hypocrites who make a lot of noise when an IE vulnerability is found, but seem to have an endless stream of smart ass replies like "more eyes lead to better code" whenever a Firefox vulnerability is found.
At least the Free Software zealots tend to not complain as they take a more philosophical stance, its the Open Source tryhards that are a bunch of useless basement dwelling |1dd135. And yeah yeah...."IBM embraces open source you are so teh 14|V|3!!1! So wheres the source code to DB2 smart asses? They do it to sound good, but like all profitable companies know that open source is a marketing gimmick and nothing more
possibly just ignorance, but in any case, GPL vs. BSD and free vs. open source are completely orthogonal.
If you sign away enough of yourself on NDAs and other agreements, even the Microsoft Windows sources will be open to you... but that doesn't make it free. Hell, you probably can't even tell your friends what you saw.
For my part, I could care less if the software is open, but I do care if there's some dipshit company that's restricting the use of the technology.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
IMO opinion the word 'free' in Free Software is badly chosen. I would like to use the term 'Free Software' more often, but I do not always want to explain 'Free as in freedom' vs. 'Free as in beer' or something. That's why I usually fall back to using 'Open Source'. I do not care _so_ much about the differences, that I lose myself in longish explanations.
OTOH I don't have an alternative for 'free' at hand.
Anyway, I cannot stand the argues about BSD vs. GNU or 'Free' vs. 'Open Source'. Both sides have their points, both licenses have their use. There is always the right tool/license/whatever for the right job!
Roman Kennke
The ambiguity of the word "free" has been an issue for decades. And my problem with the term "open source" is that "open" has been an industry synonym for "badly marketed, loser technology" for decades. (OpenVMS anyone?)
:)
I first saw the term "libre" proposed on the gnu.misc.discuss ML back in the eighties (note: I haven't read that list since the eighties, but that's neither here nor there). I liked the term then, and I still like it now. Of course, it's never achieved the popularity of "free" or "open source", but it still gets a fair amount of use. You mostly see it as "free/libre/open source", but that's better than not seeing it at all, IMO.
Anyway, fuggit, a rose by any other name....
That would not work for some programs like GNU Emacs and many of the other GNU programs. They were never non-free programs (like Blender which was proprietary then freed). And there is little point in distinguishing between programs that were initially free software versus those that became free software later in their development.
Digital Citizen
Goatse-ware, more open than you ever imagined it could be, or ever wanted it to be.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
From TFA:
"When Linus Torvolds created the first versions of the Linux operating system, he used all the GNU tools that had been developed by the GNU Project. As a result, to this day many refer to Linux as GNU/Linux. Linux still uses the GNU "C" compiler and its "C" libraries."
Dude, if you don't know how to write TORVALDS, do us a favor, and forget the whole discussion.
o/~ Join us now and share the software
is it "white people", or "caucasian"? maybe "white american"? **shrug**. Nah is "black people". are you sure? Someone said "black american", then another person said "african american". But then that same person called the chinese "yellow people". I'm confused. Is it BSD, or GPL, or just plain FREE. ALL THESE DAMN RULES!!! who has time? Please, just keep making great software.
You need people like me so you can point your fuckin fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So what that make you? Good?
Free Software, as introduced by rms, is, and is intended to be an instrument of social change.
It would be more accurately be termed, "Freedom Software," or "Software for Social Progress."
It isn't strictly about what a single user can do with a single piece of software. It is also about promoting a landscape of social software freedoms.
We are most free when we act together. We are least free when we can not act together. "Intellectual Property" laws are the instruments of greed and power which isolate and build up walls between peoples.
The things we will do together are far greater than any one of us will do - can do - alone.
Every day which goes by under the current order is a day we will not be equal to our potential. Every day which goes by in isolation breeds darkness, the pursuit of power and hatred between brothers, one against another.
-- mn worker
I've used scads of free software in my time- many tools that I depend on are free. However, I've yet to see anything that allows me to take apart to the source code for the software and redevelop it, or to add features to it.
Working with students daily, I emphasize the difference. If you have the skill, you can bend open source software to your particular needs- Apple has certainly made a prudent decison by open sourcing Darwin. With open source, everybody wins because everyone has a vested interest in the development of the software.
Free can be free but still quite protected by copyright standards. Open source depends on creating an atmosphere where individuals can contribute to the development of the whole.
Free can still keep a number of secrets- open source lets those secrets out. One is about community, another is about altruism. I'll take a community over simple altruism any day of the week.
befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig
Well, the author linked in his article to some research gathered by ESR that said 95% of the usage was open source, rather than free software. If true, then we are essentially using one term.
Uh, please show me a free software license that does not meet the OSI's Open Source Definition.
Why does anyone take anything that LinuxWorld says seriously?
I use the terms "Free" and "Open Source" software pretty much interchangeably and assume anyone who complains about this is apparently so much more wrapped up in semantics than results that their opinion is unlikely to be of much importance.
ESR and RMS might be of the opinion "Free" and "Open Source" mean something substantially different. Guess what? It isn't their decision anymore. The community has grown larger than them.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Evidently Stallman considers "executives and business users" to be despicable creatures.
This kind of rhetoric is exactly what prevented "free" software from being accepted by the non-technical bureaucrats who, unfortunately, make most of the IT decisions in corporations and governments.
The name change to "open source" software has helped distance it from Stallman's social engineering aspirations, which is why open source is finally making inroads into traditional commercial software venues.
The term "free software," thanks to RMS's rhetoric, hase been viewed by many as the digitial equivalent of the Communist Manifesto.
The term "open source software" sheds that baggage.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
It would be interesting to compare the low quality of these responses to the higher quality responses given when Eric was originally trying to co-opt the movement. It is all downhill from here.
[...] free software is software you can use/sell/modify/kludge/hack/whatever without obligation.
No. What you've just described is called "public domain software". "Free Software" is copyrighted software which you can use in certain ways under the condition of certain obligations as specified by the Free Software Foundation. Certain core differences in the usages and obligations exist between "Open Source" software and "Free Software", so I don't understand the claim that the distinction is non-technical. The way I see it, it *is* technical.
See which licenses are on the FSF's list of Non-Free Software Licenses, but are listed on OSI's list of Approved Licenses.
For example, the Reciprocal Public License is Open Source but not Free. This is a useful distinction, in argument to Mr. Bedell's article.
o/~ Join us now and share the software
...is the glass half empty or half full of fucking bullshit that nobody cares about?
It worked for Freedom Fries so it should work for software too.
Can we PLEASE call it something other than 'free' -- perhaps something that doesn't have an alternate meaning?
I've seen this whole "free as in freedom" explained so many times it makes me sick. A good name for the movement would imply this, and not require folks to explain it over and over, while leaving others walking away with the wrong impression ('how do you make money off FREE software?').
Why don't we call it 'communal software' or something, and put a stop to the endless re-hashing of these "GPL For Dummies" rants.
I think you are highlighting one of the core problems.
I'm more from the proprietary / traditional paid software (ie Microsoft) side of the fence looking in and, right or wrong, this is how I see it:
When I hear "Free Software" I think software without cost. If I read the context correctly I *may* come to understand they mean "free speech" rather than "free beer" or "freeware" but it's not my default assumption.
When I hear "Open Source" I think of "free beer" or GPL. I assume you mean software that must be distributed for free along with the source code and any changes. I don't assume you mean software I'm allowed to view the source of but not modify for my own profit (FreeBSD and such).
If there is some difference in these terms that I should readily know about or some clarification it hasn't come yet. Honestly this is just another aspect of Free Software/Open source that seems poorly organized or centralized to me and does little to dispel prejudice that free/open source = cheap or poorly written.
The "open source" community has put together some great works but their lack of organization shoots them in the foot time and time again. It's nice to be able to debate "free software" versus "open source" but it would be nicer if you had a solid definition and could move on to more important things.
It seems that most people here at Slashdot confuses free (=libre) software with freeware (=gratis). If wee, the geeks at Slashdot doesn't know RMS and his thoughts about freedom... Then who will let others know? If we don't know why do you think a random CEO or CTO would know the difference? In fact free software has by definition to be open source - you can't have freedoms 1 or 3 without access to the source. * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. There are som cases software could be open source but not free, but I don't think thoose exeptions are so important. Maybe it is time to forget about 'free software' at a term ans say that 'open source' is what was formerly called free software.
Libertine?
IMHO Open Source it's only about you can see the code.
Free Software implies other things.
Sorry for the rant, but this is a subject that's been bugging the hell out of me...
As a moral concept, I strongly support the concept of open source and free software. As comparatively cryptic as it often tends to be, it also provides an abundance of learning and utility resources that were simply not available in previous decades.
But, at least to me, it seems that a lot of people lose touch with reality and begin assuming that the Open Source movement (loosely, a moral imperative to move the industry heavily towards open and freely available software) and open source software (task-based software released for public enhancement and development for a technical advantage) are one and the same. One is essentially a political faction (politics aren't limited to government), and the other is a development technique that can be applied wherever it's more suitable to private in-house development.
There is a deffinite need for open source software, both as a public resource (from time donated by individual developers) and as a proven method of creating tools for specific tasks (if company X needs tool Y, they can start the project then release it open source, and soon they'll have a far better tool Y at their disposal).
However, when I see comments like FSF's "The enemy is proprietary software", I'm not greatly impressed in a moral sense. The enemy is not software written for a direct profit, and business is not all about philanthropic ventures.
Personally, I'm no mercenary... if I write a neat tool for my own use, I often release it to my friends and anyone else who wants it, no license whatsoever (ie truly public domain, and bedamned). I don't demand payment for every ounce of effort I make. BUT - I want a house, I want a better car, I want a family, and in general a higher standard of living than I have... and in that respect I'd rather devote my time towards projects that will earn income, and if I create anything that gives me an advantage in a market, I'm not going to be very inclined to give it out freely (until it's been superceded or it's returns have peaked). That's not greed, that's just the basic concepts behind business. As long as it's not destructive, or TOO counterproductive to the market as a whole, it is the creation, marketing, and sole (or controlled) sales rights that usually drive the economy.
Why all the bickering over increasingly complicated licensing for what was supposed to be a fundamentally "free" concept, both in liberty as well as price? What ever happened to the old, simple, long-lived concept of "Public Domain", you know, the idea of creating something and unleashing it on the world to use and reshape as needed? There are complexities involved, especially when it's a business issue, but when did philanthropy become a war against the very business model that has built and maintained the computer industry, for all it's faults?
Why are so many more or less non-profit linux distributions expending such a great deal of effort NOT to produce the best operating system they can, on it's own merits, but actively trying to wage war against the current dominant product, which they don't even need to "compete" with? As a private citizen, I support the very concept Linux, but as an administrator and devleoper I don't give a rat's ass about anything but performance and my own design preferences (which Linux has long been my favorite for, but is losing ground with me for a number of reasons). I have to deal with sudden new security issues on my linux servers almost as often as on my windows servers, it's been a long time since I've had a serious technical problem with my windows servers, and it's nice to actually be able to install a friggin product by simply installing it, instead of dealing with dependancy chains, compiler compatability, and other plain annoyances. And with the increasing number of licensing I have to deal with (mysql, RHE - I'm starting to dislike redhat, and others), I'm starting to wonder where the "free
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
There is an old lesson of history: as a rule of thumb, things bearing "open" in their name aren't open. "The Open Group", anyone? Do we learn anything from history?
Well, I prefer Open Source Software over closed source software anyday. But just keep in mind that you can have Open Source software which is not free as in Free Speech. In fact, most software whose developers and "leaders" prefer Open Source as term are not that free at all. Is Evolution Free Software? Try and submit a patch. If this patch doesn't match the marketing goals of Novell you will get a kick in the ass. Yeah, it's open, but it's not free.
Free means going wild, it means doing things that you *can* do and don't care for your "target group" because the target group is you and you care for yourself. If you have to fork a software to get a useful, well-coded feature in, it may be open, but not free. Is Gnome open? Yes. It is free? No. Is going wild bad? Go figure. It's bad for penetration in the commercial market, but is it bad for you?
The term "Open Source" is and ever was nothing than marketing. Luckily MS hasn't got that yet. If they weren't that dumb they would've announced Longhorn as being Open Source once it's ready. Hey , imagine that! Just that it wouldn't change a bit. They'd get developers working there ass off to fix bugs and add features and would still be what they are. They would not go wild.
The fundamental difference between what I'll call the "RMS approach" and the "ESR approach" ... is that with the ESR approach, software freedom is a means to an end. That end is, of course, "software that doesn't suck." It's inexpensive to acquire, maintained by a community (creating all the usual efficiencies), and doesn't create lock-in. With the RMS approach, software freedom is an end in itself. It's something that, on its own, has value.
Most of us geeks understand the value of software freedom. It's why many of us willingly choose free software even if we have the money to buy proprietary alternatives that might have a bigger feature set, or a fancier UI, or whatever. We understand it. But ESR is correct when he asserts that most software users are not wired the same way we are. They want value, and they want functionality. They usually don't have the sophistication to understand why software freedom is important. That's why the software needs to meet or exceed their needs.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
If you make a commercial product yourself under a BSD licence, and try to make money selling boxed software, you're not going to sell very much, though. You're probably better off using the GPL licence, because then, at least companies who want to use your code in a commercial product and don't want to release it under the GPL will have to get another licence from you, which you can charge them as much money for as the market will bear. See MySQL for an example.
That's only true until that "freeware" stops being free-of-charge, then they suddenly start to care a lot. There's nothing like a little six-figure bombshell landing on a PHB's desk, it seems to concentrate the mind wonderfully.
As an example, the closed-source app PowerArchiver was once "free", til enough people started using it and depending on it, then its owner's started charging for it. Luckily, the LGPL'd 7-zip was there to step into the breach. 7-zip's also used in the installer for FireFox, and it's a good thing the Moz project never relied on a free-of-charge closed-source tool for the installer.
The morality of Free vs. OSS licensing means a lot more to me personally than just precision. But even all those users who think they don't care about licenses can eventually see that closed and semi-closed licenses are a bad deal for them in the long run, once you point out to them that GPL'd software can never go bankrupt, never get bought out, never get canned by marketing droids, never raise its rent, etc.
As long as someone's willing to maintain the code, it can remain free of charge to all those users who don't care about code, but care deeply about cash.
It was an interjection just like yours here that birthed the term "open source".
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
There is obviously a lot of confusion around the term "free software" - as one post pointed out, there's at least three types: freeware (free as in beer), free software (free as in freedom) and open source (you can access the source). But only free software gives you the freedom to do what you want with it, like sell, modify, reuse it or publish it. Freeware may be closed source, and open source may have restrictions applied.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
We're about to hit the 200th post and a large majority of what has been written is severely depressing, because Slashdotters still confuse "free as in beer" and "free as in speech".
I mean, one would think WE would know the diference!
So I propose a name change for Free Software. Thus, we can finally end any possible confusion as to what we mean and we can make use of the positive connotations of the term proposed: Freedom Software.
Now, before everyone starts with the inverted French jokes and political gnashing of teeth, think of the possibilities.
RMS will be ecstatic, the media will stop misrepresenting us, the public and business sectors will cease to have a negative reaction to us and we can concentrate on making said software better!
I am not joking about this, by the way. Think: Freedom Software. It's perfect!
Cheers,
Morel
Why did
Actually, the "free" does mean no licensing fees. It's just that "licensing" in the case of free software applies to redistribution and not use. Redistributing free software is "free" as in free beer, and the use of the software is not restricted in any way (a free software license is a copyright license, not a contract as most software licenses are).
It was a really good paper.
The entire article, and no doubt the Slashdot discussion, is riddled with a failure to observe the use/mention distinction.
EXAMPLE
"Boston" has two "o"'s.
Boston does not have two "o"'s.
To add to the confusion, the author inconsistently employs scare quotes, which are double quotation marks used around a phrase, not to mention the phrase, but to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the concept that the phrase expresses, or for other conversational reasons.
People who are not careful enough to understand or correctly employ the use/mention distinction should usually refrain from serious semantic discussion.
"Thank you"
I wonder why the name of this person is not out in the open.
Okay...I think in the end...the amiguity could be resolved by changin "free software" to "freedom software" (tm). Then people avoid the whole "free as in beer" confusion. May not be grammatically correct but I think it's still more reasonable...
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Raymond notes that a search on Sourceforge for "open source" versus "free software" is 97%+ versus Despite this, the words free software don't appear on my project's Sourceforge page. After reading this, perhaps I'll put those words up there. Looking around at other projects, I see one on page two of a Google search for "free" on Sourceforge that one project aims to develop free (GPL) speech recognition tools. This project seems to be one saying it is in the Stallman "faction" although since they say "free (GPL)...tools" instead of "free software", Eric Raymond doesn't count them.
More importantly, let's look at the license, are people issuing the "open source" BSD ones or the "free" GPL ones? 40434 projects are GPL while only 4194 projects are BSD. In fact, 6479 projects are LGPL, so even the GPL lesser license beats BSD.
Looking at the Linux and GNU section I noticed one of the last paragraphs which reads:
"Addendum: Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was developed at UC Berkeley. It was non-free in the 80s, but became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
"People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped persuade them, but the code had little overlap with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation."
Or maybe from the other GNU/Linux referenced site.
I'm confused on this...isn't the reasons for calling linux GNU/Linux because it makes use of GNU products (like the compiler, libraries, applications - EMACS, etc) as part of the environment or distribution as a whole? By that same logic, I still don't see way GNU/BSD does not fit by RMS's own words. Does BSD have a completely different set of libraries, applications, compilers, etc that aren't GNU based?
I know of the split between ATT based Unix and the Berkley version of UNIX, but still...
Oh well...I guess in the end it's a to-mA-to, verses to-mah-to symantic argument..
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
So, here's a real-life example: I bought my first computer for use in music, and that is still my primary use (outside of work). There isn't much free (or open source) pro-quality music software. According to RMS, this means that I simply shouldn't do music on my PC, because I sacrifice my freedom when I use proprietary software. This just demonstrates that he either doesn't know what freedom is, or doesn't know what a computer is. How is it more free for me to not get the job done? There are times when you should sacrifice your freedom in service of a moral principle, (for example, not buying slave-produced chocolate), but this one doesn't make sense. I shouldn't use any software to do the job because none of it is as free as RMS says it should be?
I think that the real problem is that RMS has some transcendent view of computers that doesn't have much to do with what they really are for most people. ESR (and OSI) seem to understand this - people use computers to get the job done. Whatever gets the job done best is what creates the most freedom. ('Best' is a word that can vary from user to user - most reliable, cheapest, easiest to use, etc.) Open source is a vastly better engineering model, and that is its primary benefit. (I hope some serious open source music apps start happening!)
One of the other problems with RMS is that he thinks that if two parties enter into a mutually agreeable relationship, it is only ethical and free if it meets his requirements, instead of their own. If I choose to purchase crappy software from MS and agree to their EULA it may be dumb, but why is it unfree? The real freedom occurs when I select the product - I can choose OSS or proprietary. If RMS has his way I will be less free, because I will only be able to select OSS software.
Final disclaimer: while I disagree with RMS about many things, I do not intend any disrespect to him. The creation of the GPL (and many of the GNU tools) demonstrate his brilliance, and, while I think his principles are wrong, I must admit (and admire) the fact that he sticks with them. I would never suggest that he abandon principle, just that he rethink the ones to which he is committed. Hint to /.ers: it's possible to strongly disagree with him without denigrating him as a human being.
I propose promoting the term "General Public Licensed Software" (abbreviated GPL Software when possible).
Runner up: "free domain software"
1) People are familiar with the related, but not identical term of "public domain"
2) "free domain" sounds close to "freedom", or "freedom in"
Another:
Syndicated Software (very business-like)
Free Software - This is software which is Free, as in speech. As in the wind. As in thought. This software gives the users four basic freedoms -
- Freedom 0) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
- Freedom 1) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
- Freedom 2) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
- Freedom 3) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Source: The Free Software Definition. Also I would like to note that not only is "free as in beer" not a part of the Free Software philosophies, but the FSF has sold copies of it's sotware since day one! In the beginning of the movement RMS used to sell tapes of emacs for $300 to put a roof over his head. Today the FSF will sell a rather pricey distro, hand compiled for you by the boys at the FSF. This is _NOT_ about free as in beer.The Free Software movement is about Freedom to use my programs without restrictions (read your EULA, folks), Freedom to give copies of the program(s) to others (sorry, can't give you a copy of photoshop even if you're going to use it only once), Freedom to modify the programs (This program is close to what we need but does not suit our businesses' needs. I'll have my IT boys fix it.), and the Freedom to create a community working together to create great software. More information can be found on GNU's philosophy pages.
Open Source - While the Open Source definition mirrors the Free Software definition in many ways, the two are far from the same in theory and are almost totally different in practice. Real world experience shows that the Open Source movment is far more interested in bug checking than freedom - insert the "many eyes" statement here. This is more development model than philosophy, while FS focuses on the "why", OS focuses on the "how". This is what gets Free Software fans in arms - we worry more about what the software will let us do than about how the software was made. An excellent explination of this is "It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again", written by Open Source co-founder and Debian guru Bruce Perens (/. profile).
Since this post is getting very wordy, I'll close with something I've noticed over the past year or so - When a lot of slashdotters talk about Open Source they're really talking about the freedoms that the Free Software philosophies have given them. Look around at the stories and comments and keep in mind what both movments really are, you'll be quite amazed.
(Please forgive my terse presentation - this can be a very deep subject and I wanted to keep it as brief as possible.)
The real problem is that the FSF decided to redefine the word "Free", and the OSI decided to redefine "open-source". RMS thinks that just because he says "free" means something other than the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of "free" and what 99.9% of English-speakers think to be the meaning of "free".
Likewise, "open-source" implies openness of the source code. But no, the OSI decided that it means the exact thing the FSF said "free" means. We need one term that is our own, and that doesn't already mean something else.
Le français vous intéresse?
In other words, we all are free to do what Richard Stallman wants us to do. "Free Software" comes with a licence agreement.
They are not confusing anything. Free, as in beer, is the normal use of the word. "Free software" should mean the same thing as Freeware, and does so for most of the non-programming public speakers of the English (or American) language.
So you wouldn't mind 18th-century conditions? Working for 12-14 hours a day?
Lots of software people do 12-14 hour days - perhaps not all the time, but it's not a rarity either.
I have to say that actually I do not mind either, if I am working for a purpose I believe in. It's only when a company is forcing you to work on something you dislike that hours like that become egregious.
There's nothing wrong with 14 hour days per se. It's a matter of how much control a company has over workers, and if or how the choose to exert that power. From that standpoint I believe we are better off than the 18th century, since indentured servitude is not really legal anymore (even if some situations seem similar).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm a Free Software guy, because after all has been said and done, the GNU philosophy provides a much more rational answer to the question of "Why use it?" than the Open Source Initiative.
.NET framework, the continued, and apparently unbreakable, dominance of Adobe and Quark in graphic design. Packages like AutoCad, Maya, Cubase, Reason, Live and Final Cut Pro are not just best-of-class, they practically define the industry. And then there's everybody's favorite, games: in the 6 years since the founding of the OSI, the games industry has grown by more than 100%, all without giving open source so much as a second thought.
The Open Source Initiative answers that question by saying that Open Source software is better: the programs are better, the development model is better, the support is better. In some cases that's at least subjectively true. Apache really is a best-of-class webserver. gcc really is a very good compiler collection.
But then the examples quickly dry up. Mozilla, supposed to be the posterchild of the OSI movement, was years late, and had to be forked to spawn Firefox to finally deliver something people will actually use. It's a bit better in some respects than Internet Explorer, but not by a large margin. What's more it has been plagued by the exact same problems that open source development was supposed to prevent: it's late, security issues have been kept under wraps (you'll need to copy-paste this link into a new browser window), and it's bloated.
That's not to say that it's bad software. In fact, I think it's pretty good software. But after years of development, broad community support, and generous funding by AOL, the end result turns out to be just slightly better than the most important closed source competitor. It's hardly a compelling argument in favor of the supposed superiority of Open Source.
It's easy to go on in this vein, and mention the whole or partial failures of Open Office, or Helixcode, or XFree86, but that would be merely antagonizing and besides, it doesn't prove anything. In order to debunk the claim that Open Source leads to better software, it's not sufficient to mention open source failures: it's necessary to show closed source success as well.
Well, that's not hard either. There's Apple's spectacular introduction of MacOS X, Microsoft's splendid
Considering all this, it's hard to maintain that Open Source implies better software. And if it doesn't imply that, then why use it, or produce it? After all, isn't the Open Source creed all about doing what works best?
Most Open Source advocates aren't quite ready to admit this to themselves yet. They claim Open Source produces more secure software, and use Windows' extremely poor record in this regard to prove it -- but they ignore the rising number of GNU/Linux exploits and the exemplary security record of closed source MacOS and HP/UX. They claim MS Office is bloated, but ignore the lumbering blimp that is Open Office. The list goes on and on, but I'm quite sure that at this point the few people who are still reading will wonder whether this post goes on forever.
When all is said and done, what remains is the love of programming, the joy of seeing your work being put to good use, and the desire to share it with like-minded souls. Being "better" is important; what's more important is how we can protect our rights to share amidst a climate of overbearing patents and corporate favoritism.
This is what the GPL tries to guarantee, and why Free Software is so different from Open Source.
The BSD licence does allow this, therefore you can take FreeBSD and make a product out of it and not release the changes. It is the GPL that prevents closed-source derivative works.
"It's strictly one of attitude - are we focused on moralism and changing peoples' thoughts (free software) or on results and changing peoples' behavior (open source)?
It's not a question of attitude at all. Attitude is determined by the past experiences of the individual. From what I've studied in psychology, a person's underlying behavior will only change if the thought patterns change. For thought patterns to change, there has to be an incentive. Change in behavior will ultimately follow if the new thoughts persist long enough.
But the original post mentioned 'moralism' - therefore, it sounds like the author is alleging the question, "Does free/open-source software versus stolen software change people's attitudes toward the usability of free/open-source software?"
Stolen software has to be part of this equation because moralism has nothing to do with free/open-source software. Unless you are illegally bundling/distributing code or binaries.
Without the moralism check, we can assume that a larger percentage of people will steal software because of the one underlying notion that 'something that is free isn't really that good.'
Sayings like 'Nothing is free' and 'Everything has a price' are part of our consumer culture. Case in point, I lost a bid for developing a large corporate website. The reason: I bid 2/3 below the largest bidder! They ultimately won because the board members felt the higher price was going to bring better quality because it cost more. How many people pay for 'quality' when they purchase something based on the label/manufacturer? Are those Nike sneakers really that much better than they were 10 years ago? Is that Mercedes better now that Chrysler bought them? Or that Gucci handbag made in Malaysia?
With time, all empires fall, and some notions, too. Given enough time, some software packages become bloated and less functional (M$ Office) while other become more nimble (Blender.) I believe this is the future for free and open-source software to eventually dominate, however I still don't make much of a distinction between them. From what I see, all software has a license to use it. Almost every consumer product has directions or limitations of use (Take two pills every four hours for pain not exceeding 10 pills in one 24 hour period.)
If I see any distinction between free and open-source, one gives you the binary while the other gives you the source.
For people's attitudes to change about free/open-source software, they have to feel like they are getting that bargain. It's about changing the rooted perspective 'that which is 'free' is not without consequence.'
The root of this problem may be because of the publishers of open-source software. Some projects are more relaxed than others when it comes to their development and maintenance pace. Support may be non-existent, and documentation and interfaces are usually not well thought out. They also don't have megabucks for wide media exposure so their product is not widely known. A person who does discover a free/OS solution may eventually opt to pay for corporate software ultimately because of support. Look at how corporations have bent to take the believability away from free/OS software; dropping prices, reduced versions of flagship products, extended support. Microsoft offering Asia a stripped version of Windows and Photoshop Elements for $99 are two examples of Linux and GIMP winning.
I could understand someone in the mid-90's using Microsoft's free browser versus paying Netscape for theirs. Microsoft hadn't yet established themselves for consistently building poor software. Many are finally discovering that Firefox is a wonderful, free alternative to an addled IE. I seriously doubt the newest open-source adopters make any distinction between free and open-source software.
They weren't part of the process that shaped that software. Given time, they may use it, come to like it enough to become part of the process eventually offering the development team feature suggestions and bug comments. That is the behavior change needed to make open-source software the dominate player in the world.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
I think "Freed Software" would be best: no ambiguity, and it's only one letter added.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
Open source is not free, assholes. You are required to contribute your existing and future intellectual property, which - get this - has actual value. Unless you're a moron, in which case I don't give a shit what you think.
It's very cool, but it ain't free.
Free source code is the stuff we used to pass around without *any* fucking lawyertalk in it, long-haired or otherwise. Those programming for the right reasons have always shared their source code freely.
Jesus fucking christ. What a rotten, pathetic state of affairs when you can't download a matrix multiplier without having your attorneys clear it first.
In case it ain't clear, FREE means NO FUCKING LICENSE. Open source is that other stuff, and IT IS NOT FREE.
The difference between open source and free software has nothing to do with precision and being sufficiently technical. The two movements value different things and therefore arrive at different evaluations of licenses and recommendations for what software should do.
People understand freedom quite well, it's the speakers who are reluctant to appear "political" and shy away from freedom talk. This happens particularly amongst Americans trying to explain software freedom, ironically. What these speakers don't understand is that they are still expressing political views when they champion open source values; they are just expressing views with which the business world is far more keen to focus on and give them support for doing.
Digital Citizen
We will undoubtedly come across someone who disagrees or finds it uncomfortable to hear freedom talk or talk of equality between men's and women's social circumstances. But we should continue to insist upon what we want. I want software freedom, including the right to make private undistributed derivatives, so I'm sure to ask for free software by name. Open source would not give me the same rights.
Social progress depends on persistent demands. As Frederick Douglass wrote:
I find the use of the term "extremist" in your post odd--as if the demand becomes unreasonable if someone can get others to call the demand "extremist"; we need not bother examining what the demand is for if someone we trust calls it "extremist". It is reasonable, fair, and just to demand equal pay for equal work (still denied to women in the US) or desegregated schools (still denied to many non-whites via bussing). Those who want software freedom should also insist on software freedom without backing down to mere "open source".
Digital Citizen
IE (for Windows) is not Free software in either sense. IE is not zero-cost, since recent license agreements require a Windows license to use IE. IE is certainly not Free Software as the source is not available (for openers).
Yes, you can run IE for Windows using WINE, but that goes against the IE license.
>>Public domain software IS "free",
>I never said it wasn't. I said (rather, implied) that free software isn't necessarily public domain.
Bullshit! You wrote, "No. What you've just described is called "public domain software". "Free Software" is copyrighted software which you can use in certain ways under the condition of certain obligations as specified by the Free Software Foundation. [...]"
Public domain software is not copyrighted, but it is free software. Therefore, your statement that free software is copyrighted is wrong. The fact that something is "free software" does not mean that it is copyrighted.
Likewise, public domain software is not subject to "condition of certain obligations as specified by the Free Software Foundation", and yet it is free software.
If you don't admit you are wrong here and now and you wonder in the future why people do not take you seriously, it may be because they check your previous posts.
Were the GPL ever to be the subject of a legal battle, it would be ripped to shreds. There are other licenses available (or you can always have a lawyer draft one for you), but sooner or later, I think the GPL's poor wording is going to kick us in the butt.
I know some of you think that ALL software should be Free. Let's for a moment consider a world where ALL software must be Free by law.
Now let's say I'm CEO of Adobe. My engineers say they can - for about $5 million - develop a really really good software tool. Let's say they want to call it 'Photoshop'. I know from market research that users will be willing to pay about $200 for a copy of 'Photoshop'.
In the world we live in now, I can say 'Yes here's your $5m go develop it' because I know the chances are good that I can sell enough copies for $200 a piece to recover the investment and to make a bit of profit on top.
But in a 'Free' software world I can't do this. The first guy that I sell 'Photoshop' to will upload it to Kazaa and then I can only make money from supporting Photoshop users. Soon other companies will support them for less, and I can't even do that anymore.
So how can I fork out $5m for this software in a Free software world? I don't get it.
Best post EVAR!
No, we don't need the word "free". "Open" does just fine.
The Statue of Open with her raised arm lighting the world for openness given to America (land of the open) by France to celebrate Life, Openness, and Equality is surely evidence of that.
I'll go raise my flag now, in honor of the brave who died so I can be open.
/sarcasm
FREE WARE - FREE SOFTWARE - Free of cost, makes me richer.
OPEN WARE - OPEN SOURCE - Open to inspection; many eyes find bugs; protects my CONSUMER RIGHTS.
FREEEDOM WARE - GPL (etc) - Free to use, copy, change, fork; protects my CIVIL RIGHTS.
Open vs. Free is Consumer vs. Citizen.
He quotes a paper by ESR about the relative frequency of 'free software' and 'open source', and finds that '"open source"' is significantly more common than '"free software"', even amongst developers. I of course was suspicious about this, because I'm almost certain I see software described as 'free/open source' as frequently as I see it described as 'open source', and I'm sure I see it described as 'free' a decent amount. Of course, he's only looking for '"open source"' and '"free software"' as phrases, totally ignoring cases when I say that my software project is 'free, meaning you can do whatever you like'.
If you think he provides compelling reason to use the phrase "open source", you might be wrong. 'Open source software' only has a mere nineteen thousand hits on sourceforge.net using Yahoo!, in comparison to the ninety thousand ESR says 'free software' has. Obviously the open source movement has lost, and we should all be go back to the FSF!
Look out!
If software is Free as in Libre, then it is not possible that the source can be unavailable as that is an integral part of being able to modify the software to suit your needs...
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
I think we should abolish the First Admendment of the US Constitution, then it doesnt matter whether we have Free or Open Software.
Think about it? Why waste all these words on such a silly concept as the freedom to use software?
We should just call it "software". That would save a lot of time in using all these extra words.
Who needs to think about the difference in Freedom and merely being able to look at the source code?
Why even bother looking at the source code?
You do that and then people will think you might have independant thought! Then you'll end up getting sued for copying someone's idea!
Just keep it simple. Call it "software" and dont think too much. Your brain might freeze!
> The laugh I'm having is that it reminds me
> of Monty Python and the People's front
> of Judea vs. The Judean Peoples Front.
"Splitter!"
Perhaps he could start by getting the important names right first. Eric is a jerk.
Agreed. Anyone saying that Free Software and Open Source have no distinction never got the Free Software movement to begin with. If they did, they'd be arguing FOR it, rather than against it.
The only motivation for this is a selfish desire to have more fighters under the Open Source banner, even when they disagree on important principles.
If I want to contribute to the community, I release Open Source. But if some commercial bastard pisses me off and releases their "free" proprietary program with some essential functionality missing "for strategical reasons", I release the alternative as GNU GPL'd Free Software - screw you, you want my features in your junk, re-release as GNU or write them yourself!
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
god damn it - i said to use html not plain text...
s s/ 2004/04-2-4-gpl-enforcement-knf2004.pdf
relevant links for arguement above...
http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/
http://www.franken.de/de/veranstaltungen/kongre
The intellectual property attorney told me
..."
that it is only a matter of time until people
begin to assert the right to royalties for
code contributed to free software projects
that generates any income for anybody.
Absolute trollish bs. If a third party has complied with the terms of the licence (say the GPL), then they have explicit permission to redistribute it. Specifically:
"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." and "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
Nowhere does it mention payment of royalties.
Additional terms cannot be added after the fact (something SCO are about to learn to their detriment).
The GPL is an explicit licence to use and redistribute the code WITHOUT PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES, as long as certain conditions are satisfied.
If you think so, check out the archives of emacs-devel@gnu.org, the recent thread "Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual" where the XEmacs developers ask to be able to use updates of the GNU Emacs manual. The GNU Emacs manual has recently changed its license to the GFDL. Their request was denied by RMS. RMS explicitely expressed that this denial was done to inconvience XEmacs developers and their users. The thread is interesting -- it shows that the FSF is clearly not user centric, but project centric; and they define what Free Software is, in the end.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
GPL has some interesting side effects that few people understand.
s sification/index.shtml
Softpanorama site has some interesting papers
See http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_cla
Both of these are actually incorrect. GPLed software can be distributed for a price--even an absurdly high price (look at what the FSF used to charge for tapes of emacs...), but any distribution must include full source code and the ability to modify and redistribute the same.
BSDLed code may be used for anything--you can take it, change it and sell it and not include the source.
Thus the GPL protects the freedom of users (who can always modify and redistribute the code), whilst the BSDL protects the freedom of the code itself (it imposts almost no restrictions on the code or its use). I prefer the GPL, since as an author I don't want someone else to take my code proprietary.
You're conflating the concepts the thread is focusing on. "Freeware" is often proprietary software, software you cannot inspect, share, or modify. With some freeware, you can't even run it at any time for any reason. "Closed source" is a reference to a development methodology that was built to not talk about software freedom. The GNU GPL and the BSD licenses (there are more than one) are free software licenses but they have different effects which make a great deal of difference even to non-programmers. Derivatives from new BSD-licensed programs, for instance, may be licensed under a non-free license and feature improvements the free software user wants. This would adversely impact the free software user and tempt them to switch to the non-free derivative. This would only happen with the GPL-covered program if the copyright holder failed to enforce their license.
Ability and freedom are not the same thing, consider writing, for instance. One may become a very good writer by practicing writing but have little freedom to express the views they really want to express. This frequently happens in repressive countries. US citizens may have freedom of speech but that doesn't make all Americans great speakers. So, understanding why software freedom is important doesn't require one to be a programmer.
On a practical level, even non-programmers can relish software freedom when they learn about what happens when users lack software freedom. In that link, even though Cory Doctorow calls this "buy[ing] open" (a reference to the open source movement), iPod devices would be better if they ran on free software; users would not be subjected to Apple's downgrades (which Doctorow has documented as well). Apple can downgrade iPods without a user's informed consent because Apple ships proprietary software to their users who mostly diligently install whatever they are given. The user has no opportunity to inspect the software to see what it really does, or change it if they don't like what they're being offered. Both of these jobs require source code to be reasonably effective, but delivering a copy of source code is insufficient. One has to have a copy of the source code under a license that allows sharing and modification. And, in a crucial difference between open source and free software, mere "open"ness would not give iPod users the chance to make private undistributed derivative software so that iPod users could keep the improvements they make to themselves.
Digital Citizen
Software patents could prevent that from occurring and neither BSD license (I recall there being 3 and 4-clause BSD licenses) mentions anything about licensing a patent in such a way that the software can be hacked up.
Copyleft is about preventing others from taking away software freedom in derivatives. There's nothing in the definition of free software that requires a copyleft, and copylefted free software licenses present practical problems some non-copylefted licenses don't. However, I'd hardly say you have fairly framed the issue or arrived at a reasonable conclusion about how useful the definition of free software is.
Digital Citizen
I certainly hope that's not what you are taking away from this discussion because that is horribly mistaken.
Free software is not defined in terms of open source, nor could it be because the free software movement was started over a decade before the open source movement. The term free software was defined well before open source was defined.
Guaranteeing the freedoms of free software for derivative works is termed "copyleft" and, again, has nothing to do with open source. The open source movement doesn't talk about copyleft or distinguish between licenses in this way because the open source movement doesn't talk about software freedom. The open source movement was built to speak to business and it was believed by this movement's founders that it would be easier to do this job if freedom talk was dropped. You'll still find this approach in operation today: Mark Webbink, chief counsel for Redhat, wrote an article not too long ago about "open source licenses" in which he goes around the barn to categorize licenses by which ones require "open source" derivatives, and he conspicuously does not use the term "copyleft".
Digital Citizen
What license allows you to take open source software, modify it then sell it closed source for profit provided you pay someone their fair share for the original works?
I don't remember exactly where, but I've seen the term "Free Source Software", and I really like it.
It seems less confusing than "Free Software" and still has the dichotomy with "Open Source".
Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Uh. First note that Linux is distributed under the GPL, a license from the Free Software Foundation. With that in mind, note that IDC forcasts that Linux will be a $35 Billion market.
Intel made more profit off of it's RedHat investment than it's largest competitor (AMD) made in a decade.
Sure you weren't trolling?