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:I thought

[Planesdragon]

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.)

Distinction misplaced

[Peaker]

The real distinction is between the Open Source movement and the Free Software movement. Both movements make software that is open-source and is free software.

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".

Re:Distinction misplaced

[Telex4]

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.


Well, yes. But one can go further to point out that Open Source is simply a development methodology. If you distill Open Source according to the Open Source Institute and Eric Raymond down you get nothing really questioning the way we think of property, community and the place of information in society. If proprietary methodologies happened to create better software, Open Source advocates couldn't really complain. Free Software, by contrast, is the same development methodology as well as a radical (and thus far ill defined) philosophy with political, economic and social implications.

The point the author of the parent article misses is that to people outside the relatively small circle of programmers and tech managers, development methodologies are uninteresting and unimportant. To governments, NGOs and academics, Free Software is very interesting. To everyone else, both are dull ;-) So long as each movement encapsulates something different, they'll be relevant. And I don't see that going away unless everyone ceases to care about freedom, community and property laws, or businesses and programmers find the radical implications and approach of Free Software palatable.

Good Thought, Bad Example

[FreeUser]

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.