diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-for-freedom.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-for-freedom.html | 452 |
1 files changed, 452 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-for-freedom.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-for-freedom.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e58f8d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-for-freedom.html @@ -0,0 +1,452 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 --> +<title>Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source” +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-for-freedom.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”</h2> + +<div class="announcement"> +<blockquote><p>This article has been superseded by a major rewrite, +<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">“Open +Source” misses the point of Free Software</a>, which is much +better. We keep this version for historical reasons.</p></blockquote> +</div> + +<p> +While free software by any other name would give you the same +freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words +<em>convey different ideas</em>.</p> + +<p> +In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using +the term <a href="https://opensource.org/">“open source +software”</a> instead of <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">“free +software”</a> to describe what they do. The term “open source” +quickly became associated with a different approach, a different +philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which +licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open +Source movement are today <a href="#relationship"> separate +movements</a> with different views and goals, although we can and do +work together on some practical projects.</p> + +<p> +The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their +values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source +movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a +practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, “Open +source is a development methodology; free software is a social +movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a +suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free +software is a social problem and free software is the solution.</p> + +<h3 id="relationship">Relationship between the Free Software +movement and Open Source movement</h3> + +<p> +The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two +political camps within the free software community.</p> + +<p> +Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for factionalism: +organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, +and then treated each other as enemies. Or at least, such is the +image people have of them, whether or not it was true.</p> + +<p> +The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open +Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. We disagree on +the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical +recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific +projects. We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. +The enemy is +<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"> proprietary +software</a>.</p> + +<p> +We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be +lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our +community, but we created this community, and we want people to know +this. We want people to associate our achievements with our values +and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not +obscured behind a group with different views. To prevent people from +thinking we are part of them, we take pains to avoid using the word +“open” to describe free software, or its contrary, +“closed”, in talking about non-free software.</p> + +<p> +So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the +work we have done, and the software we have developed—such as the +<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating system.</p> + +<h3 id="comparison">Comparing the two terms</h3> + +<p> +This rest of this article compares the two terms “free software” and +“open source”. It shows why the term “open source” does not solve +any problems, and in fact creates some.</p> + +<h3 id="ambiguity">Ambiguity</h3> + +<p> +The term “free software” has an ambiguity problem: 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 a +<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"> more precise definition of free +software</a>, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely +eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, +if it didn't have other problems.</p> + +<p> +Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their +own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, +but none is so clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good +idea. Every proposed replacement for “free software” has a similar +kind of semantic problem, or worse—and this includes “open source +software.”</p> + +<p> +The official definition of “open source software,” as published +by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition +of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, +and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably +restrictive of the users. + +However, +the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” +is “You can look at +the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free +software; it includes free software, but also +some <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"> +proprietary</a> programs, including Xv, and Qt under its original license +(before the QPL).</p> + +<p> +That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its +advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand +what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal +Stephenson defined “open source”:</p> + +<blockquote><p> +Linux is “open source” software +meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files. +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +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 Kansas published a similar definition: +<!-- The <a href="http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf"> state of +Kansas</a> published a similar definition: --></p> + +<blockquote><p> +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></blockquote> + +<p> +Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by +publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for +“free software.”</p> + +<p> +But the explanation for “free software” is simple—a +person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free +beer” will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct +way to explain the official meaning of “open source” and +show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.</p> + +<h3 id="fear">Fear of Freedom</h3> + +<p> +The main argument for the term “open source software” is +that “free software” makes some people uneasy. That's +true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about +responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think +about things they might rather ignore. This can trigger discomfort, +and some people may reject the idea for that. It does not follow that +society would be better off if we stop talking about these things.</p> + +<p> +Years ago, free software developers noticed this discomfort reaction, +and some started exploring an approach for avoiding it. 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. The term “open source” is +offered as a way of doing more of this—a way to be “more +acceptable to business.” The views and values of the Open Source +movement stem from this decision.</p> + +<p> +This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. Today many +people are switching to free software for purely practical reasons. +That is good, as far as it goes, but that isn't all we need to do! +Attracting users to free software is not the whole job, just the first +step.</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, and why would users decline? +Only if they have learned to <em>value the freedom</em> free software +gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to spread this +idea—and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A +certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business +can be useful for the community, but we must have plenty of freedom +talk too.</p> + +<p> +At present, we have plenty of “keep quiet”, but not enough +freedom talk. Most people involved with free software say little +about freedom—usually because they seek to be “more +acceptable to business.” Software distributors especially show +this pattern. Some +<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating system +distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and +they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step +backwards from freedom.</p> + +<p> +We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, +failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as +they enter it. This is why non-free software (which Qt was when it +first became popular), and partially non-free operating system +distributions, find such fertile ground. To stop using the word +“free” now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about +freedom.</p> + +<p> +If those using the term “open source” draw more users into our +community, that is a contribution, but the rest of us will have to +work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those users' +attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives you +freedom!”—more and louder than ever before.</p> + +<h3 id="newinfeb">Would a Trademark Help?</h3> + +<p> +The advocates of “open source software” tried to make it a +trademark, saying this would enable them to prevent misuse. This +initiative was later dropped, the term being too descriptive to +qualify as a trademark; thus, the legal status of “open source” is +the same as that of “free software”: there is no <em>legal</em> +constraint on using it. I have heard reports of a number of +companies' calling software packages “open source” even though they +did not fit the official definition; I have observed some instances +myself.</p> + +<p> +But would it have made a big difference to use a term that is a +trademark? Not necessarily.</p> + +<p> +Companies also made announcements that give the impression that a +program is “open source software” without explicitly saying so. For +example, one IBM announcement, about a program that did not fit the +official definition, said this:</p> + +<blockquote><p> +As is common in the open source community, users of the ... +technology will also be able to collaborate with IBM ... +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +This did not actually say that the program <em>was</em> “open +source”, but many readers did not notice that detail. (I should note +that IBM was sincerely trying to make this program free software, and +later adopted a new license which does make it free software and +“open source”; but when that announcement was made, the program did +not qualify as either one.)</p> + +<p> +And here is how Cygnus Solutions, which was formed to be a free +software company and subsequently branched out (so to speak) into +proprietary software, advertised some proprietary software products:</p> + +<blockquote><p> +Cygnus Solutions is a leader in the open source market and has just +launched two products into the [GNU/]Linux marketplace. +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +Unlike IBM, Cygnus was not trying to make these packages free +software, and the packages did not come close to qualifying. But +Cygnus didn't actually say that these are “open source software”, +they just made use of the term to give careless readers that +impression.</p> + +<p> +These observations suggest that a trademark would not have truly +prevented the confusion that comes with the term “open source”.</p> + +<h3 id="newinnovember">Misunderstandings(?) of “Open Source”</h3> + +<p> +The Open Source Definition is clear enough, and it is quite clear that +the typical non-free program does not qualify. So you would think +that “Open Source company” would mean one whose products are free +software (or close to it), right? Alas, many companies are trying to +give it a different meaning.</p> + +<p> +At the “Open Source Developers Day” meeting in August 1998, several +of the commercial developers invited said they intend to make only a +part of their work free software (or “open source”). The focus of +their business is on developing proprietary add-ons (software or +<a href="/philosophy/free-doc.html">manuals</a>) to sell to the users of +this free software. They ask us to regard this as legitimate, as part +of our community, because some of the money is donated to free +software development.</p> + +<p> +In effect, these companies seek to gain the favorable cachet of +“open source” for their proprietary software +products—even though those are not “open source +software”—because they have some relationship to free +software or because the same company also maintains some free +software. (One company founder said quite explicitly that they would +put, into the free package they support, as little of their work as +the community would stand for.)</p> + +<p> +Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software +development. Some of these companies primarily developed non-free +software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore +their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. +Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software +contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did.</p> + +<p> +We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't let +us. These companies actively invite the public to lump all their +activities together; they want us to regard their non-free software as +favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not +one. They present themselves as “open source companies,” hoping +that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be +fuzzy-minded in applying it.</p> + +<p> +This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done +using the term “free software.” But companies do not seem to use +the term “free software” that way; perhaps its association with +idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term “open source” opened +the door for this.</p> + +<p> +At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often +referred to +as <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">“Linux”</a>, the +featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. +He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to +“support” that system. Unfortunately, their form of +“support” consists of releasing non-free software that +works with the system—in other words, using our community as a +market but not contributing to it.</p> + +<p> +He said, “There is no way we will make our product open source, +but perhaps we will make it ‘internal’ open source. If we +allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, +they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better +product and better service.” (This is not an exact quote, as I +did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)</p> + +<p> +People in the audience afterward told me, “He just doesn't get the +point.” But is that so? Which point did he not get?</p> + +<p> +He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement +does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people +to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and +better development. The executive grasped that point completely; +unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was +considering implementing it partially, within the company.</p> + +<p> +The point that he missed is the point that “open source” was +designed not to raise: the point that users <em>deserve</em> +freedom.</p> + +<p> +Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job—it needs your help. +That's why we stick to the term “free software” in the GNU +Project, so we can help do that job. If you feel that freedom and +community are important for their own sake—not just for the +convenience they bring—please join us in using the term +“free software”.</p> + +<hr /> + +<!-- The archived version is truncated. +<p> +Joe Barr wrote an article called +<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080703140137/http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">Live and +let license [archived]</a> that gives his perspective on this issue.</p> +--> + +<p> +Lakhani and Wolf's +<a href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">paper on the +motivation of free software developers</a> says that a considerable +fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This +was despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge, +a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.</p> + +<hr /> +<blockquote id="fsfs"><p class="big">This essay is published +in <a href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free +Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard +M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a +href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. There are also <a +href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and other +corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a +href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for +information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.</p> +</div> + +<p>Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2007, 2016 Free Software Foundation, +Inc.</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2016/11/18 06:31:39 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |