diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/open-source-misses-the-point.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 500 |
1 files changed, 500 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/open-source-misses-the-point.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/open-source-misses-the-point.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..772c73c --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/open-source-misses-the-point.html @@ -0,0 +1,500 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.90 --> +<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - +Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2> + +<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address> + +<div class="article"> + +<blockquote class="comment"><p> +The terms “free software” and “open +source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However, +they say deeply different things about those programs, based on +different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom +for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. +By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage +and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree +with open source, and do not use that term. +</p></blockquote> + +<p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects +the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential freedoms</a>: +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> + +<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; +the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all +students to use the free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux +operating system</a>. 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> + +<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 <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) +to release them under—a license designed specifically to protect +freedom for all users of a program.</p> + +<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> + +<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. Most discussion of “open source” pays no +attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's +a <a href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"> +typical example</a>. A minority of supporters of open source do +nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible +among the many that don't.</p> + +<p>The two now +describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for +views based on fundamentally different values. For the +free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, +essential respect for 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.</p> + +<p>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> + +<p>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same +software (<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">or nearly so</a>), +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. What we advocate is not +“open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed +source”. To make this clear, we avoid using those terms. +</p> + +<h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source</h3> + +<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than +those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free +software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open +source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First, +some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify +as free licenses. For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree +because its license does not allow making a modified version and using +it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.</p> + +<p>Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one +without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree +conditions. <a href="https://code.visualstudio.com/License/">Microsoft +does this with Visual Studio,</a> for example.</p> + +<p>If these executables fully correspond to the released sources, they +qualify as open source but not as free software. However, in that +case users can compile the source code to make and distribute free +executables.</p> + +<p>Finally, and most important in practice, many products containing +computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users +from installing different executables; only one privileged company can +make executables that can run in the device or can access its full +capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the +practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo) +where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free +source code, and nominally carries a free license, the users cannot +run modified versions of it, so the executable is de-facto nonfree.</p> + +<p>Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of +Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2. We +designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this practice.</p> + +<p>The criteria for open source are concerned solely with the +licensing of the source code. Thus, these nonfree executables, when +made from source code such as Linux that is open source and free, are +open source but not free.</p> + +<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and +“Open Source”</h3> + +<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> + +<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.”</p> + +<p>The <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">official definition of +“open source software”</a> (which is published by the 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. 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 the 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 Neal Stephenson, +“Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply, +that anyone can get copies of its source code files.” 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 <a +href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">state +of Kansas</a> 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> + +<p>The <i>New York +Times</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"> +ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to +user beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and +give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers +have practiced for decades.</p> + +<p>The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment +that +are <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published +without a patent</a>. Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable +contributions to society, but the term “source code” does +not pertain to them.</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> + +<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. There +are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software +licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.</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” or “transparent”, or +less than that. At worst, it +has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"> +become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</p> + +<h3>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> + +<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. I +will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop +a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to +maintain and defend it.</p> + +<h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3> + +<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 +href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">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.</p> + +<h3>Fear of Freedom</h3> + +<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.</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>When open source proponents talk about anything deeper than that, +it is usually the idea of making a “gift” of source code +to humanity. Presenting this as a special good deed, beyond what is +morally required, presumes that distributing proprietary software +without source code is morally legitimate.</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.</p> + +<h3>“FLOSS” and “FOSS”</h3> + +<p> The terms “FLOSS” and “FOSS” are used to +be <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"> neutral between free +software and open source</a>. If neutrality is your goal, +“FLOSS” is the better of the two, since it really is +neutral. But if you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral +term isn't the way. Standing up for freedom entails showing people +your support for freedom.</p> + +<h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3> + +<p>“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare. +“Free software” and “open source” are +different ideas but, in most people's way of looking at software, they +compete for the same conceptual slot. When people become habituated +to saying and thinking “open source,” that is an obstacle +to their grasping the free software movement's philosophy and thinking +about it. If they have already come to associate us and our software +with the word “open,” we may need to shock them intellectually +before they recognize that we stand for something <em>else</em>. +Any activity that promotes the word “open” tends to +extend the curtain that hides the ideas of the free software +movement.</p> + +<p>Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work +on an activity that calls itself “open.” Even if the +activity is good in and of itself, each contribution you make does a +little harm on the side by promoting the open source idea. There are +plenty of other good activities which call themselves +“free” or “libre.” Each contribution to those +projects does a little extra good on the side. With so many useful +projects to choose from, why not choose one which does extra good?</p> + +<h3>Conclusion</h3> + +<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 cause.</p> + +</div> + +<h4>Note</h4> + +<!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013. +<p> +Joe Barr's article, +<a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">“Live and +let license,”</a> 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 is 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> + +</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 © 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2020 Richard Stallman</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: 2020/10/06 08:00:33 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |