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)?'"

Comments

Re:BSD vs. GNU again

[terevos]

Uhh.. how is that "more free"? By FORCING modifications to be open source. Is that more free? Isn't the idea of freedom that you can do whatever you want? That would be BSD.

I like GPLed software and I like BSD licensed software. GPL is great - but it's certainly not 'more free' than BSD. You can do anything you want with BSD - the ultimate freedom.

The GPL enforces that the source will remain 'open', but that kind of action to me isn't something I would call 'free' - 'Free' in the 'freedom' sense is the BSD license.

RMS should dispense with the Marxist rhetoric

[stankulp]

Richard M. Stallman: "Some who favored this term (open source) aimed to avoid the confusion of 'free' with 'gratis' - a valid goal. Others, however, aimed to set aside the spirit of principle that had motivated the free software movement and the GNU project, and to appeal instead to executives and business users, many of whom hold an ideology that places profit above freedom, above community, above principle. Thus, the rhetoric of 'open source' focuses on the potential to make high-quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas of freedom, community, and principle."

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.