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
I could be wrong, but IMO, they aren't the same licenses. The GPL and BSD licenses differ quite a bit.
For many people "free" suggests poor quality as in "you get what you pay for". If you tell your boss that you want everyone to start migrating from Microsoft products to "free software", chances are they won't be too excited about the prospect. You tell them that you want to migrate to "open source software" and they'll at least give that a listen.
``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.
open source doesn't necesarily mean free, and free is not necessarily open source...
however, most people don't really care if it's open source or not, free is fine. i like open source software, but don't mess with or even download the source code... it's nice that someone else does the work. someday i may learn a programing (non-web programing) language and help out, but until then, let someone else mess with the source code. as long the free is adware/spyway/malware free.
Evolution is a state-sponsored, state-protected religion.
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.)
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.
Yes, and a square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle can't be a square. Maybe I'm missing your point...
"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
Now, back to the topic at hand...
Open Source packages that are sold (such as Enterprise versions of Linux a la SUSE or Xandros) prove that Open Source does not always mean freebies, though many have come to equate it with such a term.
This is particularly interesting because of the mindset. When I think of Open Source, I think of useful software that's free, but without detriments to my system (firefox or Open Office).
But when I think of free software, the first thing that pops into my mind is this spyware-supported trash that finds its way on to many unsuspecting user's pc's...something like Gator's auto complete software or Kazaa's file sharing p2p, and definately screensavers.
This has sadly corrupted my idea about what free software is.
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
No, there is more to it than that. The source being open doesn't mean you can modify it, and the software being free doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.
There is a distinction between free as in cost, and as in freedom.
Maybe RMS should have called it Emancipated Software.
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
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".
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.
I'm sorry, but I think it's utterly ridiculous. The two are not mutually inclusive and cannot be used interchangably.
Although all open source software is free by its very nature, it's ridiculous to try to make the reverse analogy that free software is also by default open source. There are a number of quality programs out there for which the source code is not freely available but the program itself is free of cost and in many cases limitations.
Web sites have been posted and we are all aware of many of them. I have not seen the source code to AdAware being made available, but I know that it is not only a high-quality piece of software, but it is also free from cost, whether hidden (adware) or explicit. We can all name multiple other products that are the same way.
If anyone confuses "free" with "cheap", they are only preventing themselves from experiencing some great products as long as they are aware of which "free" products really are free and which ones have hidden "costs", aka Kazaa.
It can also be argued that early Shareware programs, like Doom and the various Apogee games were free but not open source (at least back then). We could play the first chapter of those games as often as we wanted. They were indeed free but they at the time were most certainly not open source.
So, there is a strong distinction between "open source" and "free software". Just because one includes the other doesn't mean that it has to be the same in the other direction. To consider the two phrases to be synonymous is a ridiculous notion.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
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.
But inherently flawed. Open Source software is usually Free, too, but sometimes it isn't. I can see how the two labels could be confusing (but not as confusing as free as in beer and free as in speech), but as long a free software is closed source or open source software is even occassionally not free, the distinction is still important.
All generalizations are bad.
While the author of this post means "free" as in freedom, liberty/libre, emancipation, etc. the general public will think free as in beer, gratis, no licensing fees.
At least in English-speaking countries.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The laugh I'm having is that it reminds me of Monty Python and the People's front of Judea vs. The Judean Peoples Front.
That said, I think should be enough....
what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
I thought the difference between free and open source software was that with open source you can actually download, view, and/or modify the source code while free software, such as skype or adobe acrobat reader, wouldn't allow such practices.
They're not talking about that kind of "free". However, you make a very good point without realizing it.
People can, and will give out "free" software that isn't "free". Sometimes they'll let you see the source, they'll call it "open source" but it really won't be "open source".
The questions should'nt be about whether "free" (as in speech) software or real "open source" software is better. The real question is about how to make a meaningful distinction to average people between Adobe Reader type software and Firefox type software. They can download both of them and use both of them and the average Joe has no clue about the differences. If both of them say "free" on the web site then the Joe average will assume they're the same type of thing.
Similarly, even Microsoft is sharing source on some amount of software without making it anything remotely close to "free". If they call what they're doing "opening the source" then how is the public to know the difference between that and real "open source" software?
TW
Actually as I understand the terms Free Software is a subset of Open Source software.
The definition is more restrictive, but in a way that keeps the code itself free for everybody.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Open source imply that source code available freely for copy/examination/modification, but does not necessarily imply that the software itself (e.g. the resulting binary) is free for use without additional license/fee.
Conversely, free software imply that the software (i.e. binary) is free for use without licensing fee but the source code may or may not be available for copy/examination/modification without additional license/fee.
So, a software may be open source but not free (i.e. source code available for free, but software binary may not be used without additional fee -- not common, but I suppose, possible), or may be free but not open source (i.e. software available for free but binary not available), or may be both free and open source (e.g. LINUX, BSD, GNU stuff), or finally it may be neither free nor open source (i.e. proprietary software like Microsoft Windows).
If the OSI gets too much backing from greedy corporations, it could be influenced by their needs and start encouraging licenses designed more to divide-and-conquor the open source community than to work with it.(cough, Sun's OSI-approved license, cough)
So long as the FSF exists, it'd be hard for the OSI to sell out completely.
Similarly, if Stallman & buddies happily retire sometime in their old age and Microsoft plants became the next FSF board and try to say GPL-4 alllows GPL'd code to be used to make money only for MSFT - it's nice that the OSI will provide a valuable check&ballance for that possibility.
Freeware and Free Software are two very different things. The standard similies are "free as in beer" vs. "free as in freedom."
As it stands, Free Software refers to software that is distributed under a GPL-like license, but I think that this is a poor definition. I have seen BSD projects that I would consider much more free than many GPL projects, and I'm sure there are folks out there who think that the GPL's restrictions with respect to redistribution and linking constitute restrictions on freedom.
Of course, I think when RMS says "freedom" he means, "freedom from capitalism." I also think that that definition has been demonstrated to be moot by groups like MySQL AB and TrollTech.
blah blah blah blah blah
maybe we need a new term because free software can mean two things. That is why people keep on saying free as in beer and speech. If the originator of the term in question hadn't chosen an ambiguous term like free we wouldn't have this problem. I propose a new term that will clear all this up, lets say, liberal software. Thus we have three distinct categories which form a type of hierarchy.
Free Software: IE, Media player, linux, BSD, C# etc..
(software that does not cost money)
Open source: bsd, C#, Linux, etc.
(software that you can also see the source for)
Liberal Software: Linux, etc.
(all of the above and also politically defined as free/libre )
using i think Liberal or maybe libre carries a similar meaning as Free but distinguishes it from Free in a monetary sense.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
But the problem is one of perception, not behavior as others are trying to push.
For example, "open source" to me can represent a better alternative than "free software", not the least of which is that with "open source" I can compile the code natively so that it can take advantage of the system on which is it compiled. That's often the biggest benefit to open source.
"Free software" generally denotes "precompiled and available at no cost". It might do what I want but might not be as efficient or flexible as an "open course" counterpart.
I understand where he's coming from, but to imply that the two are somehow synonymous or at least not different I think is completely wrong. Maybe it's just a matter of finding a totally different title for what he's trying to promote. I'll let him come up with that, however.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
One thing that always irked me about the "official" definition of "open source" found here is that they put a bunch of restrictions of what "open source" is.
In other words, contrary to what most people think, something to which the code is available and can be modified legally for your own personal needs is not necessarily "open source" by the definiton.
For example, CircleMud - a popular free MUD engine to which the code is available - is not "open source" by the official definition, even though anyone can grab the code and use it for their needs, as long as they don't make a profit from it (this is in the license). Such a clause prohibits the software from being "open source" by the official definiton, even if the source code is open - and there is no other appropriate name for such software! This is what bothers me the most - we can't just call it "open source" we must say "the code is available for download and use blah blah blah" instead of having a convenient name.
Come on, if the source code is open for anyone to download and modify, it should be "open source" - since that's what the name describes! Why attach some arbitrary hidden restrictions to the term, that are not easily apparent from the words themselves?
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.
Kevin Beddell will be speaking at SCALE 3x on February 12th and 13th, 2005. SCALE will be held at the Los Angeles Convention Center in Los Angeles, CA. Kevin's topic this year will be: "The Case for Open Source/Closed Standards" Other speakrs you might want to check out are John "maddog" Hall, Larry McVoy (BitKeeper), and more. Check out the site for more info. PS For a free exhibit hall pass use the promo code "free" or for a large discount on full access pass use the code "newsp".
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
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.
The "free" in "free software" means "libre", not "gratis". This has been pointed out many times already, yet some people still don't seem to understand the big difference.
All free software is open source (because its source code is available), but not all open source software is free.
It was a really good paper.
Lets just stick with the label that makes the most sense and is readily accepted without confusion. And so from this point on let it be known only as Open Source.
Sounds informative/interesting. Whether it's accurate, someone else will have to decide.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
With a license like BSD if your product hits the big time, your competitor can grab it, change some things to break compatability, and force you out of the market, while keeping their customers and yours from ever making the changes they need to their systems.
With a license like the GPL, you can never be forced out of the market by your competitor stealing your product and breaking compatibility. Conversely, both your customers benefit from any improvements either of you make, and you can still make lots of money on support, installation, customization, etc.
Now you know why semantics are important. This is /., full of geeks and we still get it wrong. I don't know if the two need to be joined but we need to find some term that avoids the term "free".
It's not funny if I have to explain it.
It's not good marketing if you have to correct people everytime!
I don't think, Therefore I'm not.
This seems like a match between ESR and RMS, the way they're setting it up. Anyone else willing to pay-per-view for that event?
Is it really an attitude thing? According to Cathedral/Bazaar somewhere didn't people coin "Open Source" because a lot of people were being misled by the term "Free?" You know, like when you have to explain "free as in freedom" vs. "free as in beer." With "Open Source" you immediately get that the source code is open and infer that you can view code.
Then you split hairs with "how open is that source?" Is it BSD-style where I can do what I want with it or is it GPL style where I have to give it back along with the changes I made? Or is it "shared source" which means look but don't touch and only if you're willing to give up your firstborn?
True, one of the aspects between OSS and Free Software is the attitude, but there are clear differences. It seems that as XHTML is a subset of XML (or is that HTML subset of SGML?) "Free Software" is a subset of "Open Source."
Then again, what the hell do I know. I say cage match between ESR and RMS with Perens as ESR's manager and Linus as the impartial guest referee. That should decide it.
Blood flows free, hackers, blood flows free!!!
Heh, you got THAT right! License bloat is a real problem. Someone can make a 15 line P2P program, but the license will take up 25K. If developers can forego the attribution thing and put everything into public domain anonymously, then they can safely ignore the IP issues, and we will have real progress. Let's get the egos(not invented here syndrome) out of the way, and begin some real collaboration. Those who want to make money selling software will just have to do contract work with the understanding that there will be no exclusivity. The money will be just as good as the present trickle down system we have today.
What?
It could have something to do with language too.
There are things that are present in some language and not in another. And i tend to think that it has an effect on how people think.
For example:
In english there is no distinct word for free vs. free (beer vs. speech)
In russian there is no distinct word for house vs. house (home vs. building)
etc etc...
(Don't be rough on me - i'm sure there are special case words - but the average Joe or Ivan never uses them, and because of that probably don't grasp the full difference)
I used to suggest "unrestricted software", but someone was explaining why the GPL could be seen as "restrictive" last time I brought it up on Slashdot. I still think it's the least confusing English word to use to describe software-libre.
Then there's "freedom software", which I think is a bad term to start using. Idunno - how do you succinctly phrase "software which is guaranteed to let you do what you want as long as you let others to the same"?
Hey, if the Eskimos can manage with a bunch of words that all mean "snow" (variants on a theme), then certainly we can do the same with respect to "Open Source" and "Free Software".
Open vs Free would be the eternal debate among english speakers. The term Open Source was originally coined to avoid "free as in beer" interpretation.
I think the "free as in freedom" part is the most important thing, because it started all this, and IMHO it's the only thing that prevent us from going back to the dark ages. As I see it, Open Source terminology denies a little of that perspective.
However... this is only a problem in English... AFAIK all Latin based languages doesn't have this problem, for instance, in Argentina we say "Software Libre".
One "semantically correct" name is all we need. Specially if you have to convince (not confuse) your boss in five minutes.
Nobody cares about zealot infighting and semantics.
This type of crap is why many IT departments laugh at you if you mention linux or OSS as a solution.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I would suggest 'Freedom Software'. That way you can please both 'free as in libre' proponents and anti-French Bushies.
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
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 ...
possibly just ignorance, but in any case, GPL vs. BSD and free vs. open source are completely orthogonal.
If you sign away enough of yourself on NDAs and other agreements, even the Microsoft Windows sources will be open to you... but that doesn't make it free. Hell, you probably can't even tell your friends what you saw.
For my part, I could care less if the software is open, but I do care if there's some dipshit company that's restricting the use of the technology.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
IMO opinion the word 'free' in Free Software is badly chosen. I would like to use the term 'Free Software' more often, but I do not always want to explain 'Free as in freedom' vs. 'Free as in beer' or something. That's why I usually fall back to using 'Open Source'. I do not care _so_ much about the differences, that I lose myself in longish explanations.
OTOH I don't have an alternative for 'free' at hand.
Anyway, I cannot stand the argues about BSD vs. GNU or 'Free' vs. 'Open Source'. Both sides have their points, both licenses have their use. There is always the right tool/license/whatever for the right job!
Roman Kennke
The ambiguity of the word "free" has been an issue for decades. And my problem with the term "open source" is that "open" has been an industry synonym for "badly marketed, loser technology" for decades. (OpenVMS anyone?)
:)
I first saw the term "libre" proposed on the gnu.misc.discuss ML back in the eighties (note: I haven't read that list since the eighties, but that's neither here nor there). I liked the term then, and I still like it now. Of course, it's never achieved the popularity of "free" or "open source", but it still gets a fair amount of use. You mostly see it as "free/libre/open source", but that's better than not seeing it at all, IMO.
Anyway, fuggit, a rose by any other name....
With GPL, however, it's harder to do that, because somebody else can eat your lunch no matter how big or small your modifications are.
There are many perspectives other than that of the original author.
That would not work for some programs like GNU Emacs and many of the other GNU programs. They were never non-free programs (like Blender which was proprietary then freed). And there is little point in distinguishing between programs that were initially free software versus those that became free software later in their development.
Digital Citizen
Goatse-ware, more open than you ever imagined it could be, or ever wanted it to be.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
From TFA:
"When Linus Torvolds created the first versions of the Linux operating system, he used all the GNU tools that had been developed by the GNU Project. As a result, to this day many refer to Linux as GNU/Linux. Linux still uses the GNU "C" compiler and its "C" libraries."
Dude, if you don't know how to write TORVALDS, do us a favor, and forget the whole discussion.
o/~ Join us now and share the software
is it "white people", or "caucasian"? maybe "white american"? **shrug**. Nah is "black people". are you sure? Someone said "black american", then another person said "african american". But then that same person called the chinese "yellow people". I'm confused. Is it BSD, or GPL, or just plain FREE. ALL THESE DAMN RULES!!! who has time? Please, just keep making great software.
You need people like me so you can point your fuckin fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So what that make you? Good?
I've used scads of free software in my time- many tools that I depend on are free. However, I've yet to see anything that allows me to take apart to the source code for the software and redevelop it, or to add features to it.
Working with students daily, I emphasize the difference. If you have the skill, you can bend open source software to your particular needs- Apple has certainly made a prudent decison by open sourcing Darwin. With open source, everybody wins because everyone has a vested interest in the development of the software.
Free can be free but still quite protected by copyright standards. Open source depends on creating an atmosphere where individuals can contribute to the development of the whole.
Free can still keep a number of secrets- open source lets those secrets out. One is about community, another is about altruism. I'll take a community over simple altruism any day of the week.
befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig
Well, the author linked in his article to some research gathered by ESR that said 95% of the usage was open source, rather than free software. If true, then we are essentially using one term.
I use the terms "Free" and "Open Source" software pretty much interchangeably and assume anyone who complains about this is apparently so much more wrapped up in semantics than results that their opinion is unlikely to be of much importance.
ESR and RMS might be of the opinion "Free" and "Open Source" mean something substantially different. Guess what? It isn't their decision anymore. The community has grown larger than them.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
[...] 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.
See which licenses are on the FSF's list of Non-Free Software Licenses, but are listed on OSI's list of Approved Licenses.
For example, the Reciprocal Public License is Open Source but not Free. This is a useful distinction, in argument to Mr. Bedell's article.
o/~ Join us now and share the software
It worked for Freedom Fries so it should work for software too.
Can we PLEASE call it something other than 'free' -- perhaps something that doesn't have an alternate meaning?
I've seen this whole "free as in freedom" explained so many times it makes me sick. A good name for the movement would imply this, and not require folks to explain it over and over, while leaving others walking away with the wrong impression ('how do you make money off FREE software?').
Why don't we call it 'communal software' or something, and put a stop to the endless re-hashing of these "GPL For Dummies" rants.
I think you are highlighting one of the core problems.
I'm more from the proprietary / traditional paid software (ie Microsoft) side of the fence looking in and, right or wrong, this is how I see it:
When I hear "Free Software" I think software without cost. If I read the context correctly I *may* come to understand they mean "free speech" rather than "free beer" or "freeware" but it's not my default assumption.
When I hear "Open Source" I think of "free beer" or GPL. I assume you mean software that must be distributed for free along with the source code and any changes. I don't assume you mean software I'm allowed to view the source of but not modify for my own profit (FreeBSD and such).
If there is some difference in these terms that I should readily know about or some clarification it hasn't come yet. Honestly this is just another aspect of Free Software/Open source that seems poorly organized or centralized to me and does little to dispel prejudice that free/open source = cheap or poorly written.
The "open source" community has put together some great works but their lack of organization shoots them in the foot time and time again. It's nice to be able to debate "free software" versus "open source" but it would be nicer if you had a solid definition and could move on to more important things.
It seems that most people here at Slashdot confuses free (=libre) software with freeware (=gratis). If wee, the geeks at Slashdot doesn't know RMS and his thoughts about freedom... Then who will let others know? If we don't know why do you think a random CEO or CTO would know the difference? In fact free software has by definition to be open source - you can't have freedoms 1 or 3 without access to the source. * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. There are som cases software could be open source but not free, but I don't think thoose exeptions are so important. Maybe it is time to forget about 'free software' at a term ans say that 'open source' is what was formerly called free software.
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.
With a license like BSD if your product hits the big time, your competitor can grab it, change some things to break compatability, and force you out of the market, while keeping their customers and yours from ever making the changes they need to their systems.
Truer words have never been spoken. As much as I respect and value the work done by OpenBSD developers, I have serious reservations about participating in BSD development, simply because I fear that "whatever I code CAN AND WILL be used against me" at a later date.
To be sure, much has been made about the antisocial tendences of BSD proponents and their insatiable need to heckle GPL advocates to get PR. However, one can not deny the benefit associated with having access to any improvements made on one's work.
At least with GPL, I will always have an opportunity to improve on improvements made by others on my work.
Of course, there is always the possibility that I have missed some of the advantages of BSD in the Free Software / Open Software arena. So please do not consider this post an attempt to start a flame war. Instead, feel free to enlighten me.
That's the kind of infantile attitude that *makes* you a serf.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
An AC replied: I challenge you to 1) offer proof for this ridiculous statement, and 2) demonstrate how "open source" software differs.
That's easy enough:
There are still a couple ways to make money off GPLed software, but they're not as lucrative as selling many, many copies of the same software. Here they are:
Sorry for the rant, but this is a subject that's been bugging the hell out of me...
As a moral concept, I strongly support the concept of open source and free software. As comparatively cryptic as it often tends to be, it also provides an abundance of learning and utility resources that were simply not available in previous decades.
But, at least to me, it seems that a lot of people lose touch with reality and begin assuming that the Open Source movement (loosely, a moral imperative to move the industry heavily towards open and freely available software) and open source software (task-based software released for public enhancement and development for a technical advantage) are one and the same. One is essentially a political faction (politics aren't limited to government), and the other is a development technique that can be applied wherever it's more suitable to private in-house development.
There is a deffinite need for open source software, both as a public resource (from time donated by individual developers) and as a proven method of creating tools for specific tasks (if company X needs tool Y, they can start the project then release it open source, and soon they'll have a far better tool Y at their disposal).
However, when I see comments like FSF's "The enemy is proprietary software", I'm not greatly impressed in a moral sense. The enemy is not software written for a direct profit, and business is not all about philanthropic ventures.
Personally, I'm no mercenary... if I write a neat tool for my own use, I often release it to my friends and anyone else who wants it, no license whatsoever (ie truly public domain, and bedamned). I don't demand payment for every ounce of effort I make. BUT - I want a house, I want a better car, I want a family, and in general a higher standard of living than I have... and in that respect I'd rather devote my time towards projects that will earn income, and if I create anything that gives me an advantage in a market, I'm not going to be very inclined to give it out freely (until it's been superceded or it's returns have peaked). That's not greed, that's just the basic concepts behind business. As long as it's not destructive, or TOO counterproductive to the market as a whole, it is the creation, marketing, and sole (or controlled) sales rights that usually drive the economy.
Why all the bickering over increasingly complicated licensing for what was supposed to be a fundamentally "free" concept, both in liberty as well as price? What ever happened to the old, simple, long-lived concept of "Public Domain", you know, the idea of creating something and unleashing it on the world to use and reshape as needed? There are complexities involved, especially when it's a business issue, but when did philanthropy become a war against the very business model that has built and maintained the computer industry, for all it's faults?
Why are so many more or less non-profit linux distributions expending such a great deal of effort NOT to produce the best operating system they can, on it's own merits, but actively trying to wage war against the current dominant product, which they don't even need to "compete" with? As a private citizen, I support the very concept Linux, but as an administrator and devleoper I don't give a rat's ass about anything but performance and my own design preferences (which Linux has long been my favorite for, but is losing ground with me for a number of reasons). I have to deal with sudden new security issues on my linux servers almost as often as on my windows servers, it's been a long time since I've had a serious technical problem with my windows servers, and it's nice to actually be able to install a friggin product by simply installing it, instead of dealing with dependancy chains, compiler compatability, and other plain annoyances. And with the increasing number of licensing I have to deal with (mysql, RHE - I'm starting to dislike redhat, and others), I'm starting to wonder where the "free
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
The fundamental difference between what I'll call the "RMS approach" and the "ESR approach" ... is that with the ESR approach, software freedom is a means to an end. That end is, of course, "software that doesn't suck." It's inexpensive to acquire, maintained by a community (creating all the usual efficiencies), and doesn't create lock-in. With the RMS approach, software freedom is an end in itself. It's something that, on its own, has value.
Most of us geeks understand the value of software freedom. It's why many of us willingly choose free software even if we have the money to buy proprietary alternatives that might have a bigger feature set, or a fancier UI, or whatever. We understand it. But ESR is correct when he asserts that most software users are not wired the same way we are. They want value, and they want functionality. They usually don't have the sophistication to understand why software freedom is important. That's why the software needs to meet or exceed their needs.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
That's only true until that "freeware" stops being free-of-charge, then they suddenly start to care a lot. There's nothing like a little six-figure bombshell landing on a PHB's desk, it seems to concentrate the mind wonderfully.
As an example, the closed-source app PowerArchiver was once "free", til enough people started using it and depending on it, then its owner's started charging for it. Luckily, the LGPL'd 7-zip was there to step into the breach. 7-zip's also used in the installer for FireFox, and it's a good thing the Moz project never relied on a free-of-charge closed-source tool for the installer.
The morality of Free vs. OSS licensing means a lot more to me personally than just precision. But even all those users who think they don't care about licenses can eventually see that closed and semi-closed licenses are a bad deal for them in the long run, once you point out to them that GPL'd software can never go bankrupt, never get bought out, never get canned by marketing droids, never raise its rent, etc.
As long as someone's willing to maintain the code, it can remain free of charge to all those users who don't care about code, but care deeply about cash.
It was an interjection just like yours here that birthed the term "open source".
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
There is obviously a lot of confusion around the term "free software" - as one post pointed out, there's at least three types: freeware (free as in beer), free software (free as in freedom) and open source (you can access the source). But only free software gives you the freedom to do what you want with it, like sell, modify, reuse it or publish it. Freeware may be closed source, and open source may have restrictions applied.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
We're about to hit the 200th post and a large majority of what has been written is severely depressing, because Slashdotters still confuse "free as in beer" and "free as in speech".
I mean, one would think WE would know the diference!
So I propose a name change for Free Software. Thus, we can finally end any possible confusion as to what we mean and we can make use of the positive connotations of the term proposed: Freedom Software.
Now, before everyone starts with the inverted French jokes and political gnashing of teeth, think of the possibilities.
RMS will be ecstatic, the media will stop misrepresenting us, the public and business sectors will cease to have a negative reaction to us and we can concentrate on making said software better!
I am not joking about this, by the way. Think: Freedom Software. It's perfect!
Cheers,
Morel
Actually, the "free" does mean no licensing fees. It's just that "licensing" in the case of free software applies to redistribution and not use. Redistributing free software is "free" as in free beer, and the use of the software is not restricted in any way (a free software license is a copyright license, not a contract as most software licenses are).
It was a really good paper.
The entire article, and no doubt the Slashdot discussion, is riddled with a failure to observe the use/mention distinction.
EXAMPLE
"Boston" has two "o"'s.
Boston does not have two "o"'s.
To add to the confusion, the author inconsistently employs scare quotes, which are double quotation marks used around a phrase, not to mention the phrase, but to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the concept that the phrase expresses, or for other conversational reasons.
People who are not careful enough to understand or correctly employ the use/mention distinction should usually refrain from serious semantic discussion.
"Thank you"
Right, but I'm not sure anyone has really succeeded in building a business based on selling the software itself under the GPL. There are certainly companies that have sold the software but really make their money ons support contracts (Red Hat), and companies that are making money by dual-licensing the code (MySQL), but the GPL makes the software itself incompatible with the usual 'sell-the-software-for-profit" model.
But that still is by no means "freedom from capitalism", now is it?
It was a really good paper.
I wonder why the name of this person is not out in the open.
Okay...I think in the end...the amiguity could be resolved by changin "free software" to "freedom software" (tm). Then people avoid the whole "free as in beer" confusion. May not be grammatically correct but I think it's still more reasonable...
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Raymond notes that a search on Sourceforge for "open source" versus "free software" is 97%+ versus Despite this, the words free software don't appear on my project's Sourceforge page. After reading this, perhaps I'll put those words up there. Looking around at other projects, I see one on page two of a Google search for "free" on Sourceforge that one project aims to develop free (GPL) speech recognition tools. This project seems to be one saying it is in the Stallman "faction" although since they say "free (GPL)...tools" instead of "free software", Eric Raymond doesn't count them.
More importantly, let's look at the license, are people issuing the "open source" BSD ones or the "free" GPL ones? 40434 projects are GPL while only 4194 projects are BSD. In fact, 6479 projects are LGPL, so even the GPL lesser license beats BSD.
We have some choice in how that cost is paid, but it always needs to be paid. That's not ideology, that's economics.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Looking at the Linux and GNU section I noticed one of the last paragraphs which reads:
"Addendum: Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was developed at UC Berkeley. It was non-free in the 80s, but became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
"People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped persuade them, but the code had little overlap with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation."
Or maybe from the other GNU/Linux referenced site.
I'm confused on this...isn't the reasons for calling linux GNU/Linux because it makes use of GNU products (like the compiler, libraries, applications - EMACS, etc) as part of the environment or distribution as a whole? By that same logic, I still don't see way GNU/BSD does not fit by RMS's own words. Does BSD have a completely different set of libraries, applications, compilers, etc that aren't GNU based?
I know of the split between ATT based Unix and the Berkley version of UNIX, but still...
Oh well...I guess in the end it's a to-mA-to, verses to-mah-to symantic argument..
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
You did not understand my point at all.
Let's assume that party B writes a cool app, and releases it under a BSD license. Party G writes a similar app, and releases it under GPL.
It is possible for party A to make a living off of either. A can sell CD-ROMs with app B or app G, or offer services based on them.
Now, if A chooses to make minor changes to either product, another party C can come along and make the same changes easily. It doesn't really matter whether the app was based on B (in which case the few changes might have to be rewritten at worst) or G (in which A is required to publish the modified source).
However, if A chooses to significantly improve the app, A can close the final product if it was based on B, but not if it was based on G. This means that party C can save a lot of development effort and undersell party A if the product was based on G.
Therefore, if you want to take a free software product and sell a greatly improved version of it, BSD is more viable a solution because it lets you avoid freeloading competitors. If you just want to sell CD-ROMs or offer servies, then it doesn't really matter.
Note also that there are at least five parties here: A, B, C, G, and the end users. Each party derives different benefits, and would have different perspectives on the question. I'm just pointing out the view from A's corner.
So, here's a real-life example: I bought my first computer for use in music, and that is still my primary use (outside of work). There isn't much free (or open source) pro-quality music software. According to RMS, this means that I simply shouldn't do music on my PC, because I sacrifice my freedom when I use proprietary software. This just demonstrates that he either doesn't know what freedom is, or doesn't know what a computer is. How is it more free for me to not get the job done? There are times when you should sacrifice your freedom in service of a moral principle, (for example, not buying slave-produced chocolate), but this one doesn't make sense. I shouldn't use any software to do the job because none of it is as free as RMS says it should be?
I think that the real problem is that RMS has some transcendent view of computers that doesn't have much to do with what they really are for most people. ESR (and OSI) seem to understand this - people use computers to get the job done. Whatever gets the job done best is what creates the most freedom. ('Best' is a word that can vary from user to user - most reliable, cheapest, easiest to use, etc.) Open source is a vastly better engineering model, and that is its primary benefit. (I hope some serious open source music apps start happening!)
One of the other problems with RMS is that he thinks that if two parties enter into a mutually agreeable relationship, it is only ethical and free if it meets his requirements, instead of their own. If I choose to purchase crappy software from MS and agree to their EULA it may be dumb, but why is it unfree? The real freedom occurs when I select the product - I can choose OSS or proprietary. If RMS has his way I will be less free, because I will only be able to select OSS software.
Final disclaimer: while I disagree with RMS about many things, I do not intend any disrespect to him. The creation of the GPL (and many of the GNU tools) demonstrate his brilliance, and, while I think his principles are wrong, I must admit (and admire) the fact that he sticks with them. I would never suggest that he abandon principle, just that he rethink the ones to which he is committed. Hint to /.ers: it's possible to strongly disagree with him without denigrating him as a human being.
I propose promoting the term "General Public Licensed Software" (abbreviated GPL Software when possible).
Runner up: "free domain software"
1) People are familiar with the related, but not identical term of "public domain"
2) "free domain" sounds close to "freedom", or "freedom in"
Another:
Syndicated Software (very business-like)
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.)
Quote:
At least with GPL, I will always have an opportunity to improve on improvements made by others on my work.
There is no requirement to distribute source code with a GPL program. The requirement is that for 3 years, you must make the source code available to any party whom you provided with a copy of the code in any form. You may use physical media to provide the source code, and you may require the person to whom you are providing the source code to pay for the media and shipping.
There is absolutely nothing saying that any of this must be provided to the original author, nor that the original author must be notified or otherwise made aware of the change.
The GPL does not require me to provide anyone, even the original author, with a copy of the code unless and until they obtain a copy of the modified code through some mechanism.
And so everything you say about the BSD license applies equally to the GPL and LGPL licenses.
Meanwhile, you're inflicting a burden on each and every user of your software by using the GPL. They must be able to provide source code, for a period of not less than 3 years, to anyone to whom they copy the software. By definition, they must obtain the source code in order to be able to comply with this clause, because there is no requirement for the original author to provide source code for the rest of the period.
If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
The real problem is that the FSF decided to redefine the word "Free", and the OSI decided to redefine "open-source". RMS thinks that just because he says "free" means something other than the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of "free" and what 99.9% of English-speakers think to be the meaning of "free".
Likewise, "open-source" implies openness of the source code. But no, the OSI decided that it means the exact thing the FSF said "free" means. We need one term that is our own, and that doesn't already mean something else.
Le français vous intéresse?
They are not confusing anything. Free, as in beer, is the normal use of the word. "Free software" should mean the same thing as Freeware, and does so for most of the non-programming public speakers of the English (or American) language.
So you wouldn't mind 18th-century conditions? Working for 12-14 hours a day?
Lots of software people do 12-14 hour days - perhaps not all the time, but it's not a rarity either.
I have to say that actually I do not mind either, if I am working for a purpose I believe in. It's only when a company is forcing you to work on something you dislike that hours like that become egregious.
There's nothing wrong with 14 hour days per se. It's a matter of how much control a company has over workers, and if or how the choose to exert that power. From that standpoint I believe we are better off than the 18th century, since indentured servitude is not really legal anymore (even if some situations seem similar).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
The BSD licence does allow this, therefore you can take FreeBSD and make a product out of it and not release the changes. It is the GPL that prevents closed-source derivative works.
"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)?
It's not a question of attitude at all. Attitude is determined by the past experiences of the individual. From what I've studied in psychology, a person's underlying behavior will only change if the thought patterns change. For thought patterns to change, there has to be an incentive. Change in behavior will ultimately follow if the new thoughts persist long enough.
But the original post mentioned 'moralism' - therefore, it sounds like the author is alleging the question, "Does free/open-source software versus stolen software change people's attitudes toward the usability of free/open-source software?"
Stolen software has to be part of this equation because moralism has nothing to do with free/open-source software. Unless you are illegally bundling/distributing code or binaries.
Without the moralism check, we can assume that a larger percentage of people will steal software because of the one underlying notion that 'something that is free isn't really that good.'
Sayings like 'Nothing is free' and 'Everything has a price' are part of our consumer culture. Case in point, I lost a bid for developing a large corporate website. The reason: I bid 2/3 below the largest bidder! They ultimately won because the board members felt the higher price was going to bring better quality because it cost more. How many people pay for 'quality' when they purchase something based on the label/manufacturer? Are those Nike sneakers really that much better than they were 10 years ago? Is that Mercedes better now that Chrysler bought them? Or that Gucci handbag made in Malaysia?
With time, all empires fall, and some notions, too. Given enough time, some software packages become bloated and less functional (M$ Office) while other become more nimble (Blender.) I believe this is the future for free and open-source software to eventually dominate, however I still don't make much of a distinction between them. From what I see, all software has a license to use it. Almost every consumer product has directions or limitations of use (Take two pills every four hours for pain not exceeding 10 pills in one 24 hour period.)
If I see any distinction between free and open-source, one gives you the binary while the other gives you the source.
For people's attitudes to change about free/open-source software, they have to feel like they are getting that bargain. It's about changing the rooted perspective 'that which is 'free' is not without consequence.'
The root of this problem may be because of the publishers of open-source software. Some projects are more relaxed than others when it comes to their development and maintenance pace. Support may be non-existent, and documentation and interfaces are usually not well thought out. They also don't have megabucks for wide media exposure so their product is not widely known. A person who does discover a free/OS solution may eventually opt to pay for corporate software ultimately because of support. Look at how corporations have bent to take the believability away from free/OS software; dropping prices, reduced versions of flagship products, extended support. Microsoft offering Asia a stripped version of Windows and Photoshop Elements for $99 are two examples of Linux and GIMP winning.
I could understand someone in the mid-90's using Microsoft's free browser versus paying Netscape for theirs. Microsoft hadn't yet established themselves for consistently building poor software. Many are finally discovering that Firefox is a wonderful, free alternative to an addled IE. I seriously doubt the newest open-source adopters make any distinction between free and open-source software.
They weren't part of the process that shaped that software. Given time, they may use it, come to like it enough to become part of the process eventually offering the development team feature suggestions and bug comments. That is the behavior change needed to make open-source software the dominate player in the world.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
I think "Freed Software" would be best: no ambiguity, and it's only one letter added.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
The difference between open source and free software has nothing to do with precision and being sufficiently technical. The two movements value different things and therefore arrive at different evaluations of licenses and recommendations for what software should do.
People understand freedom quite well, it's the speakers who are reluctant to appear "political" and shy away from freedom talk. This happens particularly amongst Americans trying to explain software freedom, ironically. What these speakers don't understand is that they are still expressing political views when they champion open source values; they are just expressing views with which the business world is far more keen to focus on and give them support for doing.
Digital Citizen
We will undoubtedly come across someone who disagrees or finds it uncomfortable to hear freedom talk or talk of equality between men's and women's social circumstances. But we should continue to insist upon what we want. I want software freedom, including the right to make private undistributed derivatives, so I'm sure to ask for free software by name. Open source would not give me the same rights.
Social progress depends on persistent demands. As Frederick Douglass wrote:
I find the use of the term "extremist" in your post odd--as if the demand becomes unreasonable if someone can get others to call the demand "extremist"; we need not bother examining what the demand is for if someone we trust calls it "extremist". It is reasonable, fair, and just to demand equal pay for equal work (still denied to women in the US) or desegregated schools (still denied to many non-whites via bussing). Those who want software freedom should also insist on software freedom without backing down to mere "open source".
Digital Citizen
IE also runs on solaris and Mac, both are free.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
If you had listed WHY you thought spyware was free then maybe, but just saying "My idea of free software is corrupted" shows no insight in the slightest.
I thought that it was obvious why spyware is free...it shouldn't need explanation. Your core comment may not be totally off base, however...perception is hardly insightful. I won't respond to the rest of your comments, as they're too inflamatory to bother with. Nevertheless, I don't dish out the karma, so I can't say what they found insightful in this post. That's something you have to judge for yourself.
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I know some of you think that ALL software should be Free. Let's for a moment consider a world where ALL software must be Free by law.
Now let's say I'm CEO of Adobe. My engineers say they can - for about $5 million - develop a really really good software tool. Let's say they want to call it 'Photoshop'. I know from market research that users will be willing to pay about $200 for a copy of 'Photoshop'.
In the world we live in now, I can say 'Yes here's your $5m go develop it' because I know the chances are good that I can sell enough copies for $200 a piece to recover the investment and to make a bit of profit on top.
But in a 'Free' software world I can't do this. The first guy that I sell 'Photoshop' to will upload it to Kazaa and then I can only make money from supporting Photoshop users. Soon other companies will support them for less, and I can't even do that anymore.
So how can I fork out $5m for this software in a Free software world? I don't get it.
Best post EVAR!
I for one agree with you on this. Stallman is a dirty hippy.
No, we don't need the word "free". "Open" does just fine.
The Statue of Open with her raised arm lighting the world for openness given to America (land of the open) by France to celebrate Life, Openness, and Equality is surely evidence of that.
I'll go raise my flag now, in honor of the brave who died so I can be open.
/sarcasm
It's not a headache for me as a GPL'd code developer. If somebody wants to make money selling software, let him write the software he wants to sell and not include the fruits of my labor. I don't give my code away with no strings for the same reason the Secret Santa exchange won't work if you can participate without bringing a gift.
I have no problem with someone packaging the software and selling it, but the value he's adding is in the packaging, and the reward should be commensurate.
An AC said: This is not antagonistic to those who want to make money selling software. This makes it challenging for people to sell other people's software, if that software is GPL'd.
No. It makes it impossible to sell your own software more than once. Once you sell it to someone, they have exactly what you have: the executable, the source code, and the right to resell them. Thus, you can't realistically sell it to someone else because you'll be undercut by your own customers.
You missed point #2: the BSD license is not "viral", and the GPL is. Imagine if both Qt and GTK+ were available only under the GPL. Then essentially all graphical software for Linux would have to be GPLed. (And you wouldn't have the option of making another license available.) Thus, the two ways I mentioned would be the only ways to make money off graphical software for Linux.
He quotes a paper by ESR about the relative frequency of 'free software' and 'open source', and finds that '"open source"' is significantly more common than '"free software"', even amongst developers. I of course was suspicious about this, because I'm almost certain I see software described as 'free/open source' as frequently as I see it described as 'open source', and I'm sure I see it described as 'free' a decent amount. Of course, he's only looking for '"open source"' and '"free software"' as phrases, totally ignoring cases when I say that my software project is 'free, meaning you can do whatever you like'.
If you think he provides compelling reason to use the phrase "open source", you might be wrong. 'Open source software' only has a mere nineteen thousand hits on sourceforge.net using Yahoo!, in comparison to the ninety thousand ESR says 'free software' has. Obviously the open source movement has lost, and we should all be go back to the FSF!
Look out!
If software is Free as in Libre, then it is not possible that the source can be unavailable as that is an integral part of being able to modify the software to suit your needs...
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
I've only gotten part way into it, although I think most of what the "shredder" is saying is nonsense, the part as to where the GPL is unclear about what is being licensed in referral to the software (code/binaries/etc) may have other ramifications.... as the next line in the license dictates 'that you receive source code or can get it if you want it' Would that indicate that the software has to be available in some other form before the code is sent with it? Because of the wording, can it even be applied to something available solely as source code?
I admit it seems a rather outlandish thought, and I invite all to tear these statements to shreds via wording elsewhere in the GPL or just clarifying through what is said in that paragraph...
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
Of course, I think when RMS says "freedom" he means, "freedom from capitalism." I also think that that definition has been demonstrated to be moot by groups like MySQL AB and TrollTech.
You are wrong. RMS himself sold tapes of GNU emacs in the 80's.
The GPL has been the subject of legal battles. So far, every company that's been faced with copyright violation charges stemming from including GPL'd code in their products while not complying with the terms of the GPL has, after having their lawyers review the GPL, elected to comply with it's terms rather than risk going to court. Even companies like Cisco who certainly have good lawyers and enough money for that not to be an issue. If it were that easy to rip the GPL to shreds, wouldn't someone have decided they had a good enough chance of winning to take on the copyright holder?
If I want to contribute to the community, I release Open Source. But if some commercial bastard pisses me off and releases their "free" proprietary program with some essential functionality missing "for strategical reasons", I release the alternative as GNU GPL'd Free Software - screw you, you want my features in your junk, re-release as GNU or write them yourself!
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
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.
Absolute trollish bs. If a third party has complied with the terms of the licence (say the GPL), then they have explicit permission to redistribute it. Specifically:
"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." and "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
Nowhere does it mention payment of royalties.
Additional terms cannot be added after the fact (something SCO are about to learn to their detriment).
The GPL is an explicit licence to use and redistribute the code WITHOUT PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES, as long as certain conditions are satisfied.
If you think so, check out the archives of emacs-devel@gnu.org, the recent thread "Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual" where the XEmacs developers ask to be able to use updates of the GNU Emacs manual. The GNU Emacs manual has recently changed its license to the GFDL. Their request was denied by RMS. RMS explicitely expressed that this denial was done to inconvience XEmacs developers and their users. The thread is interesting -- it shows that the FSF is clearly not user centric, but project centric; and they define what Free Software is, in the end.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
What you mean by "the current order of things is capitalism," and you obviously think that some sort of socialism would be Utopia.
Answer this one question: If socialism is so good, why were 100,000,000 people murdered by socialist governments in the 20th century?
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Both of these are actually incorrect. GPLed software can be distributed for a price--even an absurdly high price (look at what the FSF used to charge for tapes of emacs...), but any distribution must include full source code and the ability to modify and redistribute the same.
BSDLed code may be used for anything--you can take it, change it and sell it and not include the source.
Thus the GPL protects the freedom of users (who can always modify and redistribute the code), whilst the BSDL protects the freedom of the code itself (it imposts almost no restrictions on the code or its use). I prefer the GPL, since as an author I don't want someone else to take my code proprietary.
Dude, when I say "imagine if..." I'm stating a hypothetical.
Have you ever actually read the GPL? It contradicts itself in at least a dozen ways. It is not an ironclad legal document. Just because a company decided not to challenge it in court doesn't mean it's unchallengable, it simply means they decided it's not worth it (most likely they either didn't understand what the GPL was trying to say in the first place, or they decided the bad PR wouldn't be worth it). Last time I noticed, OJ & Microsoft are still walking free. Do you really want to release your code under a license with loopholes, just because it hasn't been taken advantage of yet?
With open source software, for the price of the lines of code that you wrote, you get an entire operating system or application written by collaborative coders.
Now that Linux exists through the open source process, there are a lot of Linux experts making a decent living selling their Linux skills to employers.
That's how the cost is paid.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
You're conflating the concepts the thread is focusing on. "Freeware" is often proprietary software, software you cannot inspect, share, or modify. With some freeware, you can't even run it at any time for any reason. "Closed source" is a reference to a development methodology that was built to not talk about software freedom. The GNU GPL and the BSD licenses (there are more than one) are free software licenses but they have different effects which make a great deal of difference even to non-programmers. Derivatives from new BSD-licensed programs, for instance, may be licensed under a non-free license and feature improvements the free software user wants. This would adversely impact the free software user and tempt them to switch to the non-free derivative. This would only happen with the GPL-covered program if the copyright holder failed to enforce their license.
Ability and freedom are not the same thing, consider writing, for instance. One may become a very good writer by practicing writing but have little freedom to express the views they really want to express. This frequently happens in repressive countries. US citizens may have freedom of speech but that doesn't make all Americans great speakers. So, understanding why software freedom is important doesn't require one to be a programmer.
On a practical level, even non-programmers can relish software freedom when they learn about what happens when users lack software freedom. In that link, even though Cory Doctorow calls this "buy[ing] open" (a reference to the open source movement), iPod devices would be better if they ran on free software; users would not be subjected to Apple's downgrades (which Doctorow has documented as well). Apple can downgrade iPods without a user's informed consent because Apple ships proprietary software to their users who mostly diligently install whatever they are given. The user has no opportunity to inspect the software to see what it really does, or change it if they don't like what they're being offered. Both of these jobs require source code to be reasonably effective, but delivering a copy of source code is insufficient. One has to have a copy of the source code under a license that allows sharing and modification. And, in a crucial difference between open source and free software, mere "open"ness would not give iPod users the chance to make private undistributed derivative software so that iPod users could keep the improvements they make to themselves.
Digital Citizen
Software patents could prevent that from occurring and neither BSD license (I recall there being 3 and 4-clause BSD licenses) mentions anything about licensing a patent in such a way that the software can be hacked up.
Copyleft is about preventing others from taking away software freedom in derivatives. There's nothing in the definition of free software that requires a copyleft, and copylefted free software licenses present practical problems some non-copylefted licenses don't. However, I'd hardly say you have fairly framed the issue or arrived at a reasonable conclusion about how useful the definition of free software is.
Digital Citizen
I certainly hope that's not what you are taking away from this discussion because that is horribly mistaken.
Free software is not defined in terms of open source, nor could it be because the free software movement was started over a decade before the open source movement. The term free software was defined well before open source was defined.
Guaranteeing the freedoms of free software for derivative works is termed "copyleft" and, again, has nothing to do with open source. The open source movement doesn't talk about copyleft or distinguish between licenses in this way because the open source movement doesn't talk about software freedom. The open source movement was built to speak to business and it was believed by this movement's founders that it would be easier to do this job if freedom talk was dropped. You'll still find this approach in operation today: Mark Webbink, chief counsel for Redhat, wrote an article not too long ago about "open source licenses" in which he goes around the barn to categorize licenses by which ones require "open source" derivatives, and he conspicuously does not use the term "copyleft".
Digital Citizen
What license allows you to take open source software, modify it then sell it closed source for profit provided you pay someone their fair share for the original works?
I don't remember exactly where, but I've seen the term "Free Source Software", and I really like it.
It seems less confusing than "Free Software" and still has the dichotomy with "Open Source".
Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Okay. How about a lawyer that writes for Linux Insider?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/35193.html