Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Semantics of Free Software vs. Open Source

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the a-gnu-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-sweet dept.

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)?'"

3 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. Depends on who you are trying to convince by LazyNerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Competition is GOOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Another dimension? It seems that the FSF is more academically-oriented, while the OSI is more business oriented.

    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.

  3. The distinction is real and important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.