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 | 160 |
1 files changed, 96 insertions, 64 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 index 772c73c..a34ff5f 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/open-source-misses-the-point.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/open-source-misses-the-point.html @@ -1,16 +1,21 @@ <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> -<!-- Parent-Version: 1.90 --> +<!-- 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 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> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> +<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> +<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> +<div class="article reduced-width"> +<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> +<div class="important"><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 @@ -19,7 +24,7 @@ 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></div> <p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential freedoms</a>: @@ -41,7 +46,7 @@ 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 +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' @@ -74,7 +79,7 @@ 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"> +a <a href="https://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> @@ -106,7 +111,7 @@ 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. +source.” To make this clear, we avoid using those terms. </p> <h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source</h3> @@ -114,40 +119,45 @@ source”. To make this clear, we avoid using those terms. <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 +source software is free software, but there are exceptions.</p> + +<p>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>Second, the criteria for open source are concerned solely with the +licensing of the source code. However, people often describe an +executable as “open source,” because its source code is +available that way. That causes confusion in paradoxical situations +where the source code is open source (and free) but the executable +itself is nonfree.</p> + +<p>The trivial case of this paradox is when a program's source code +carries a weak free license, one without copyleft, but its executables +carry additional nonfree conditions. Supposing the executables +correspond exactly to the released sources—which may or may not +be so—users can compile the source code to make and distribute +free executables. That's why this case is trivial; it is no grave +problem.</p> + +<p>The nontrivial case is harmful and important. Many products +containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to +block users from effectively using different executables; only one +privileged company can make executables that can run in the device and +use 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 usefully 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> +Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2. (We +designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this practice; too bad Linux +did not adopt it.) These executables, made from source code that is +open source and free, are generally spoken of as “open +source,” but they are <em>not</em> free software.</p> <h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open Source”</h3> @@ -172,18 +182,25 @@ do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed replacement for 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 +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> +software” is “You can look at the source code.” +Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand “open source +software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is +“source available.”) 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>Why do people misunderstand it that way? Because that is the +natural meaning of the words “open source.” But the +concept for which the open source advocates sought another name was +a variant of that of free software.</p> <p>Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people @@ -200,8 +217,8 @@ 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"> +<p>The <cite>New York Times</cite> <a +href="https://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 @@ -209,7 +226,7 @@ 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 +are <a href="https://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> @@ -240,9 +257,9 @@ 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 +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"> +has <a href="https://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> @@ -305,7 +322,7 @@ source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.</p> 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 +href="https://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, @@ -329,7 +346,7 @@ worse.</p> <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 +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 @@ -399,7 +416,7 @@ your support for freedom.</p> <h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3> <p>“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare. -“Free software” and “open source” are +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 @@ -428,10 +445,9 @@ 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 class="column-limit"></div> -</div> - -<h4>Note</h4> +<h3 class="footnote">Note</h3> <!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013. <p> @@ -441,18 +457,17 @@ 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"> +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 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> </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 @@ -470,18 +485,35 @@ 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 +README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p> </div> -<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2020 Richard Stallman</p> +<!-- 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 © 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, 2019-2022 Richard Stallman</p> <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative @@ -491,10 +523,10 @@ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> <p class="unprintable">Updated: <!-- timestamp start --> -$Date: 2020/10/06 08:00:33 $ +$Date: 2022/02/03 01:56:01 $ <!-- timestamp end --> </p> </div> -</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> </body> </html> |