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.
``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.
"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?
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.
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.
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 ...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
"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!
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
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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?
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.