diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'src/frontend_blog/articles/scrap1_14.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/frontend_blog/articles/scrap1_14.html | 475 |
1 files changed, 475 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/src/frontend_blog/articles/scrap1_14.html b/src/frontend_blog/articles/scrap1_14.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..28dc2669 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/frontend_blog/articles/scrap1_14.html @@ -0,0 +1,475 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/loose.dtd"> +<html> +<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. + +Free Software Foundation + +51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor + +Boston, MA 02110-1335 +Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted +worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is +preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations +of this book from the original English into another language provided +the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and +the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all +copies. + +ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 +Cover design by Rob Myers. + +Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. + --> +<!-- Created on February 18, 2016 by texi2html 1.82 +texi2html was written by: + Lionel Cons <Lionel.Cons@cern.ch> (original author) + Karl Berry <karl@freefriends.org> + Olaf Bachmann <obachman@mathematik.uni-kl.de> + and many others. +Maintained by: Many creative people. +Send bugs and suggestions to <texi2html-bug@nongnu.org> +--> +<head> +<title>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 14. Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software</title> + +<meta name="description" content="This is the second edition of Richard Stallman's collection of essays."> +<meta name="keywords" content="Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 14. Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software"> +<meta name="resource-type" content="document"> +<meta name="distribution" content="global"> +<meta name="Generator" content="texi2html 1.82"> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> +<style type="text/css"> +<!-- +a.summary-letter {text-decoration: none} +blockquote.smallquotation {font-size: smaller} +pre.display {font-family: serif} +pre.format {font-family: serif} +pre.menu-comment {font-family: serif} +pre.menu-preformatted {font-family: serif} +pre.smalldisplay {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller} +pre.smallexample {font-size: smaller} +pre.smallformat {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller} +pre.smalllisp {font-size: smaller} +span.roman {font-family:serif; font-weight:normal;} +span.sansserif {font-family:sans-serif; font-weight:normal;} +ul.toc {list-style: none} +--> +</style> +<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../style.css"> + + +</head> + +<body lang="en" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#800080" alink="#FF0000"> + +<a name="OS-Misses-Point"></a> +<header><div id="logo"><img src="../gnu.svg" height="100" width="100"></div><h1>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.</h1></header><section id="main"><a name="Why-Open-Source-Misses-the-Point-of-Free-Software"></a> +<h1 class="chapter"> 14. Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software </h1> + +<a name="index-open-source-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-1"></a> +<a name="index-terminology_002c-importance-of-using-correct-3"></a> +<a name="index-free-software_002c-essential-difference-between-open-source-and-2"></a> +<a name="index-open-source_002c-essential-difference-between-free-software-and-2"></a> +<p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users’ +essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and +to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of +freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.” +</p> +<p>These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for +the individual users’ sake, but for society as a whole because they +promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They +become even more important as our culture and life activities are +increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and +words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in +general. +</p> +<a name="index-India-1"></a> +<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the +public schools of some regions of India and +<a name="index-Spain"></a> +Spain now teach all students to use the free GNU/Linux operating +system. Most of these users, however, have never heard of the ethical +reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software +community, because nowadays this system and community are more often +spoken of as “open source,” attributing them to a different +philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned. +</p> +<a name="index-free-software-movement-_0028see-also-GNU-Project_0029"></a> +<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users’ freedom +since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating +system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that +deny freedom to their users. During the 1980s, we developed most of +the essential components of the system and designed the GNU General +Public License (GNU GPL) to release them under—a license designed +specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program. +</p> +<a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-2"></a> +<p>Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the +goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part of the free +software community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of +“open source.” The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible +misunderstanding of the term “free software,” but it soon became +associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the +free software movement. +</p> +<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-open-source-v_002e-free-software-1"></a> +<p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a +“marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to +business executives by highlighting the software’s practical benefits, +while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like +to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement’s +ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for +open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term +“open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments +based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, +reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to +it since then, and they make the same association. +</p> +<p>Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms +describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for +views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a +development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the +free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, +because only free software respects the users’ freedom. By contrast, +the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make +software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree +software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. +For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social +problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free +software. +</p> +<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-teach-others-to-value-freedom"></a> +<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-use-correct-terminology-_0028see-also-terminology_0029-5"></a> +<p>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it’s the same software, does it +matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey +different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you +the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends +above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do +this, it is essential to speak of “free software.” +</p> +<p>We in the free software movement don’t think of the open source camp +as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want +people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being +mislabeled as open source supporters. +<a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-3"></a> +<a name="index-free-software_002c-essential-difference-between-open-source-and-3"></a> +<a name="index-open-source_002c-essential-difference-between-free-software-and-3"></a> +<a name="index-open-source-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-2"></a> +</p> +<a name="Common-Misunderstandings-of-_0060_0060Free-Software_0027_0027-and-_0060_0060Open-Source_0027_0027"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open Source” </h3> + +<a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-common-misunderstandings-of"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060free-software_002c_0027_0027-common-misunderstandings-of"></a> +<p>The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation: an +unintended meaning, “software you can get for zero price,” fits the +term just as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives the +user certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing the +definition of free software, and by saying, “Think of ‘free speech,’ +not ‘free beer.’” This is not a perfect solution; it cannot +completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term +would be better, if it didn’t present other problems. +</p> +<a name="index-_0060_0060free-software_002c_0027_0027-unambiguous-translations-of-1"></a> +<p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their +own. We’ve looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so +clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good idea. (For +instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word “libre” works +well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed +replacement for “free software” has some kind of semantic +problem—and this includes “open source software.” +<a name="index-India-2"></a> +</p> +<p>The official definition of “open source software”<a name="DOCF29" href="#FOOT29">(29)</a> (which is +published by the +<a name="index-Open-Source-Initiative-_0028OSI_0029"></a> +Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) +was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not +the same; it is a little looser in some respects, so the open source +people have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably +restrictive. Also, they judge solely by the license of the source +code, whereas our criterion also considers whether a device will let +you <em>run</em> your modified version of the program. Nonetheless, +their definition agrees with our definition in most cases. +</p> +<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source +software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You +can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the +free software definition, much weaker also than the official +definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither +free nor open source. +</p> +<p>Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that +its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the +term. According to writer +<a name="index-Stephenson_002c-Neal"></a> +Neal Stephenson, “Linux is ‘open source’ software, meaning simply, +anyone can get copies of its source code files.”<a name="DOCF30" href="#FOOT30">(30)</a> I don’t think he +deliberately sought to reject or dispute the “official” +definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English +language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of +<a name="index-Kansas"></a> +Kansas published a similar definition: “Make use +of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source +code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing +agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.” +</p> +<a name="index-New-York-Times"></a> +<p>The <cite>New York Times</cite> has run an article that stretches the +meaning of the term to refer to user beta testing<a name="DOCF31" href="#FOOT31">(31)</a>—letting a few users try an early +version and give confidential feedback—which proprietary software +developers have practiced for decades. +</p> +<p>Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their +official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective +for them than it is for us. The term “free software” has two natural +meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has +grasped the idea of “free speech, not free beer” will not get it +wrong again. But the term “open source” has only one natural +meaning, which is different from the meaning its supporters intend. +So there is no succinct way to explain and justify its official +definition. That makes for worse confusion. +</p> +<a name="index-GPL_002c-_0060_0060open-source_0027_0027-and"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-the-GPL-and"></a> +<a name="index-GPL_002c-GPL_002dcovered-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-1"></a> +<a name="index-GPL_002dcovered-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-1"></a> +<p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means +“not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another +misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered +software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an +open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as +free software licenses. +</p> +<p>The term “open source” has been further stretched by its application +to other activities, such as government, education, and science, where +there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software +licensing are simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities +have in common is that they somehow invite people to participate. +They stretch the term so far that it only means “participatory.” +<a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-common-misunderstandings-of-1"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060free-software_002c_0027_0027-common-misunderstandings-of-1"></a> +</p> +<a name="Different-Values-Can-Lead-to-Similar-Conclusions_2026but-Not-Always"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always </h3> + +<p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some +organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, +and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite +having similar basic goals and values. The right wing made much of +this and used it to criticize the entire left. +</p> +<p>Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our +disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical +groups. They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source camp +on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many +cases to the same practical behavior—such as developing free +software. +</p> +<p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open +source camp often work together on practical projects such as software +development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views +can so often motivate different people to participate in the same +projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally +different views lead to very different actions. +</p> +<p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and +redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. +But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not +necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is +powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users’ +freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will +react very differently to that. +</p> +<a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-4"></a> +<p>A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by +the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able +to make the program work so well without using our development model, +but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes +that take away our freedom, leading to its loss. +</p> +<p>The free software activist will say, “Your program is very +attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. +Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement.” If +we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it. +</p> +<a name="Powerful_002c-Reliable-Software-Can-Be-Bad"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad </h3> + +<a name="index-DRM_002c-open-source-and"></a> +<a name="index-open-source_002c-DRM-and"></a> +<p>The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes from +the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users. If +it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better. +</p> +<p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their +freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? +Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, and +reliability that they are harder to remove. Malicious features, such +as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and imposed +upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open source +supporters want to implement them in open source programs. +</p> +<p>Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for +individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict +them. This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions +Management (DRM) (see +<a name="index-Defective-by-Design-_0028see-also-DRM_0029"></a> +<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org">http://defectivebydesign.org</a>) and is +the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims to +provide. And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to trample +your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible, or even +illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM. +</p> +<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source DRM” +software. Their idea is that, by publishing the source code of +programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by +allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and +reliable software for restricting users like you. The software would +then be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change +it. +</p> +<p>This software might be open source and use the open source development +model, but it won’t be free software since it won’t respect the +freedom of the users that actually run it. If the open source +development model succeeds in making this software more powerful and +reliable for restricting you, that will make it even worse. +<a name="index-DRM_002c-open-source-and-1"></a> +<a name="index-open-source_002c-DRM-and-1"></a> +</p> +<a name="Fear-of-Freedom"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Fear of Freedom </h3> + +<a name="index-open-source_002c-and-fear-of-freedom"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-5"></a> +<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-convenience-v_002e-4"></a> +<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source +camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of +“free software” made some people uneasy. That’s true: raising +ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well +as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might +prefer to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can +trigger discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to +it. It does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these +issues. +<a name="index-free-software-movement-_0028see-also-GNU-Project_0029-1"></a> +</p> +<p>That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do. They +figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking +only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, +they might be able to “sell” the software more effectively to +certain users, especially business. +</p> +<p>This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric of +open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and +even develop, free software, which has extended our community—but +only at the superficial, practical level. The philosophy of open +source, with its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the +deeper ideas of free software; it brings many people into our +community, but does not teach them to defend it. That is good, as far +as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom secure. Attracting +users to free software takes them just part of the way to becoming +defenders of their own freedom. +</p> +<p>Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to +proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies +seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies gratis. Why +would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom +free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself rather +than the technical and practical convenience of specific free +software. To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom. A +certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be +useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common +that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity. +</p> +<p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people involved +with free software, especially its distributors, say little about +freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to +business.” Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add +proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users +to consider this an advantage rather than a flaw. +</p> +<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux +distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does +not insist on freedom with its software. This is no coincidence. Most +GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through “open source” +discussion, which doesn’t say that freedom is a goal. The practices +that don’t uphold freedom and the words that don’t talk about freedom +go hand in hand, each promoting the other. To overcome this tendency, +we need more, not less, talk about freedom. +<a name="index-open-source_002c-and-fear-of-freedom-1"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-6"></a> +<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-convenience-v_002e-5"></a> +</p> +<a name="Conclusion-1"></a> +<h3 class="subheading"> Conclusion </h3> + +<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-teach-others-to-value-freedom-1"></a> +<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we +free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue +of freedom to their attention. We have to say, “It’s free software +and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder than ever. Every time +you say “free software” rather than “open source,” you help our +campaign. +</p> +<a name="Notes"></a> +<h4 class="subsubheading"> Notes </h4> + +<ul> +<li> +<a name="index-Barr_002c-Joe"></a> +Joe Barr’s article “Live and Let License” (ITworld.com, 22 May 2001, <a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4</a>) gives his perspective on this issue. +</li><li> +<a name="index-Lakhani_002c-Karim-R_002e"></a> +Karim R. Lakhani and +<a name="index-Wolf_002c-Robert-G_002e"></a> +Robert G. Wolf’s paper on the motivation of free +software developers (“Why +<a name="index-hackers-6"></a> +Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding +Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects,” in +<cite>Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software,</cite> edited by J. Feller +and others (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005)) says that a considerable +fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This +is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on +<a name="index-SourceForge"></a> +SourceForge, +a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue. +</li></ul> +<a name="index-terminology_002c-importance-of-using-correct-4"></a> +<a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-7"></a> +<div class="footnote"> +<hr> +<h3>Footnotes</h3> +<h3><a name="FOOT29" href="#DOCF29">(29)</a></h3> +<p>See +<a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">http://opensource.org/docs/osd</a> for the full definition. +</p><h3><a name="FOOT30" href="#DOCF30">(30)</a></h3> +<p>Neal +Stephenson, <cite>In the Beginning...Was the Command Line</cite> (New York: +HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), p. 94. +</p><h3><a name="FOOT31" href="#DOCF31">(31)</a></h3> +<p>Mary Jane +Irwin, “The Brave New World of Open-Source Game Design,” <cite>New +York Times,</cite> online ed., 7 February 2009, +<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html</a>. +</p></div> +<hr size="2"> +<table cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" border="0"> +<tr><td valign="middle" align="left">[<a href="scrap1_13.html#Categories" title="Previous section in reading order"> < </a>]</td> +<td valign="middle" align="left">[<a href="scrap1_15.html#Not-IPR" title="Next section in reading order"> > </a>]</td> +<td valign="middle" align="left"> </td> +<td valign="middle" align="left">[Contents]</td> +<td valign="middle" align="left">[<a href="scrap1_U.4.html#Index" title="Index">Index</a>]</td> +<td valign="middle" align="left">[<a href="scrap1_abt.html#SEC_About" title="About (help)"> ? </a>]</td> +</tr></table> +<p> + <font size="-1"> + This document was generated by <em>Christian Grothoff</em> on <em>February 18, 2016</em> using <a href="http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/"><em>texi2html 1.82</em></a>. + </font> + <br> + +</p> +</body> +</html> |