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 | 101 |
1 files changed, 63 insertions, 38 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-for-freedom.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-for-freedom.html index 269ece3..68c7e66 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-for-freedom.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-for-freedom.html @@ -1,17 +1,25 @@ <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> -<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs free-open" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> <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" --> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> +<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> +<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> +<div class="article reduced-width"> <h2>Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”</h2> -<div class="announcement"> -<blockquote><p>This article has been superseded by a major rewrite, +<div class="infobox" style="font-style: italic"> +<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This article has been superseded by a major rewrite, 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> +better. We keep this version for historical reasons.</p> </div> +<hr class="thin" /> <p> While free software by any other name would give you the same @@ -20,7 +28,7 @@ freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words <p> In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using -the term <a href="https://opensource.org/">“open source +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 @@ -36,8 +44,8 @@ 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 +movement.” For the Open Source movement, nonfree software is a +suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, nonfree software is a social problem and free software is the solution.</p> <h3 id="relationship">Relationship between the Free Software @@ -72,7 +80,7 @@ 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> +“closed,” in talking about nonfree software.</p> <p> So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the @@ -83,7 +91,7 @@ work we have done, and the software we have developed—such as the <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 +“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> @@ -200,7 +208,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -213,8 +221,8 @@ 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 +they enter it. This is why nonfree software (which Qt was when it +first became popular), and partially nonfree 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> @@ -250,13 +258,13 @@ 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 ... +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 +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 @@ -275,19 +283,19 @@ launched two products into the [GNU/]Linux marketplace. <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”, +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> +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 +the typical nonfree 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> @@ -314,16 +322,16 @@ 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 +development. Some of these companies primarily developed nonfree software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore -their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. +their nonfree 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 +activities together; they want us to regard their nonfree 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 @@ -339,11 +347,11 @@ 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 +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 +“support” consists of releasing nonfree software that works with the system—in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.</p> @@ -378,9 +386,8 @@ 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 /> +“free software.”</p> +<div class="column-limit"></div> <!-- The archived version is truncated. <p> @@ -388,24 +395,25 @@ 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> --> - +<h3 class="footnote">Note</h3> <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 +<a href="https://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>This essay is published -in <a href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free +<hr class="no-display" /> +<div class="edu-note c"><p id="fsfs">This essay is published in +<a href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard -M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote> +M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div> +</div> </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> -<div id="footer"> +<div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> <div class="unprintable"> <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a @@ -423,16 +431,33 @@ href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> - <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + <p>For information on coordinating and contributing 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> +information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p> </div> -<p>Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2007, 2016, 2020 Free Software Foundation, +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 1998-2003, 2007, 2010, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" @@ -443,10 +468,10 @@ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> <p class="unprintable">Updated: <!-- timestamp start --> -$Date: 2020/10/26 13:25:22 $ +$Date: 2021/09/11 09:37:22 $ <!-- timestamp end --> </p> </div> -</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> </body> </html> |