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 could be wrong, but IMO, they aren't the same licenses. The GPL and BSD licenses differ quite a bit.
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
Not that I have anything against free beer.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When someone says free software in this context it means libre. free software and freeware are not the same thing at all. freeware is software you can use without paying for it, and free software is software you can use/sell/modify/kludge/hack/whatever without obligation. freeware is beer free, free software is freedom free. open source software can be free software, or not, and it can be freeware, or not. It's all in how the product is licensed. And, as the original article indicates, it's largely a matter of semantics. For a lot of people it's still a pretty important difference though.
That's why this is a matter of politics. To those who proposed "Open Source", the position at the time was that "Open Source" was a more marketing friendly term. However, ironically, given the critics, Open Source actually has a lot of additional political baggage over Free Software, and it could be argued that this is precisely because of the reason for its creation, where much of the complaining was that "Free Software", as then expounded by RMS and others, was "too political" - ie not populist enough.
To sell it, Open Source was touted as, essentially, a development model, not merely a set of rights. Organizations are encouraged to contribute to Free Software, in the knowledge that the more people who get involved, the better it is for everyone. The GPL is good for Open Source because it promotes a level playing field, where an organization can feel that it can contribute without the risk of some rival organization taking the code and using it against them - any improvements the rival makes will be accessable to the original. Make no mistake, the model was advertised as having a price, that in order to participate and take advantage of the model, the core software would have to give all those involved access, but essentially, that was the difference.
Free Software, by comparison, is merely the set of rights. Nothing more. And has always only meant the set of rights. Nobody has ever proposed free software was a model.
In other words, Open Source is project centric. Free Software is user centric. They may both rely upon the same thing, but I seriously don't think they mean the same thing any more, if they ever did.
Personally, I'm not overly hung up on OSS. But Free Software, to me, is something I consider fairly important. I want to be able to support my stuff, even when nobody else does.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Indeed. Viewing software as a product rather than a service makes the economics of both open source and free software make no sense. If you view it as a service, then things make more sense.
Also, I'm not surprised that an open source person said that they are the same. I dare you to find a free software person who thinks they are the same. Free software is about idealism, where things like attitudes and freedom matter. Open source is more about bug free software and success in the marketplace. The second is improtant, but the first is crucial in the long term.
You have it largely backwards.
Free software enforces your ability to improve/extend/add-to the project. Open source, in general, does not - because vendors can keep extentions secret..
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 ...
You're way off. If it is true what you are saying, Andromeda is not open source either. Open Source software has a Open Source License which adheres to the Open Source Definition of the Open Source Initiative which specificaly requires redistribution.
[...] 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.
I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but FYI, the APSL (AAPL is Apple's ticker symbol) was revised, and is now considered to be a free (but GPL-incompatible) open-source license.
From your link:
Apple Public Source License (APSL), version 2
This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve the software released under this license. More explanation is available
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.)
As you can see, "The freedom to use free code in one's own non-free project" is NOT listed as a required freedom for Free Software.
There's a simple explanation for this apparent contradiction: By allowing this freedom would allow you to negate the other freedoms.
It's an example of why absolute freedom doesn't and can't exist within a society. Freedom to do absolutely whatever you want endangers the freedom of others. Absolute freedom is anti-social. There have to be limits to what you can and cannot do in order for everybody to coexist. That's why the debate , even amongst libertarians, is over what limits on freedom are reasonable.
The absence of your stated freedom is required to make the system work. Otherwise, you'd end up with freeloaders who take the work of others, add something to it, close it, and profit off of that work that was given freely. By requiring you to give back when you take you insure that the system continues and functions for all.
fuck you.
Why don't you just say shame on the early speakers of the English language for not having the the foresight to divide the different things that free can be applied to?
Why don't you complain that it is sad that we have no separate words for things like "free of worries" or "free of charge" or "free of noise" or any other things that come under the umbrella of the concept of free?
The fact is: The FSF came up with the ONLY English word for what they are talking about. That word is free. The consequence that "free of charge" is the aspect that most English speakers necessarily associate with the word free is no fault of those who believe in freedom. The members of the FSF have chosen the correct word.
A bunch of narrow minded, money-worshipping businessmen have twisted its meaning to their normally asinine point of view. Money may be important, but it does not govern everything. And freedom, certainly, is not wholly restricted to freedom from this or that expense.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz