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
you wouldn't have this problem is Stallman had chosen a verb rather than a noun, such as "free programming."
Open Source is "here's the source, you can see what it does, feel free to use the source to make something else."
Free Software is "everyone has the right to see what their computer's doing, and do whatever they want with the software on their computer."
(The headaches start because GPL'd "Free Software" is rather antagonistic to those that want to make a living selling software. It's hard to profit when anyone can copy your product and sell it for half price.)
"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
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".
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
Wait, so are you telling me that you - presumably a serf like myself - *want* to cater to the greed of executives and managers?
You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but it seems like you have bought into a system of ideology which perpetuates the notion that they deserve - have a right to - their social, economic, and political control of our lives.
The current order is the creation of men; it is not holy, sacred, or Truth. These men were no wiser or more priveleged to truth than ourselves. They are dead and buried. If we choose now to remain captive to their whims and fancies, we are fools.
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.