diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html | 190 |
1 files changed, 190 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..40f3f0f --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 --> +<title> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> + <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior</h2> + +<p> +by <a href="https://mako.cc/writing/"><strong>Benjamin Mako Hill</strong></a></p> + +<p>The Open Source Initiative's mission statement reads, “Open source +is a development method for software that harnesses the power of +distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of +open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, +lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.”</p> + +<p>For more than a decade now, the Free Software Foundation has argued +against this “open source” characterization of the free software +movement. Free software advocates have primarily argued against this +framing because “open source” is an explicit effort to deemphasize +our core message of freedom and obscure our movement's role in the +success of the software we have built. We have argued that “open +source” is bad, fundamentally, because it attempts to keep people from +talking about software freedom. But there is another reason we should +be wary of the open source framing. The fundamental open source +argument, as quoted in the mission statement above, is often +incorrect.</p> + +<p>Although the Open Source Initiative suggests “the promise of open +source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,” this +promise is not always realized. Although we do not often advertise the +fact, any user of an early-stage free software project can explain +that free software is not always as convenient, in purely practical +terms, as its proprietary competitors. Free software is sometimes low +quality. It is sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible. If +people take the arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must +explain why open source has not lived up to its “promise” and conclude +that proprietary tools would be a better choice. There is no reason we +should have to do either.</p> + +<p>Richard Stallman speaks to this in his article on <a +href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why +Open Source Misses the Point</a> when he explains, “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.”</p> + +<p>For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained +away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software, +it is a problem to be worked through. For free software advocates, +glitches and missing features are never a source of shame. +Any piece of free software that respects users' freedom has a strong +inherent advantage over a proprietary competitor that does not. Even +if it has other issues, free software always has freedom.</p> + +<p>Of course, every piece of free software must start somewhere. A brand-new +piece of software, for example, is unlikely to be more featureful +than an established proprietary tool. Projects +begin with many bugs and improve over time. While open +source advocates might argue that a project will grow into usefulness +over time and with luck, free software projects represent important +contributions on day one to a free software advocate. Every piece of +software that gives users control over their technology is a step +forward. Improved quality as a project matures is the icing on the +cake.</p> + +<p>A second, perhaps even more damning, fact is that the collaborative, +distributed, peer-review development process at the heart of the +definition of open source bears little resemblance to the practice of +software development in the vast majority of projects under free (or +“open source”) licenses.</p> + +<p>Several academic studies of <a href="/software/repo-criteria.html"> +free software hosting sites</a> SourceForge and <a +href="http://sv.gnu.org">Savannah</a> have shown what many free +software developers who have put a codebase online already know +first-hand. The vast majority of free software projects are not +particularly collaborative. The median number of contributors to a +free software project on SourceForge? One. A lone +developer. SourceForge projects at the ninety-fifth percentile by +participant size have only five contributors. More than half of these +free software projects—and even most projects that have made several +successful releases and been downloaded frequently, are the work of a +single developer with little outside help.</p> + +<p>By emphasizing the power of collaborative development and “distributed +peer review,” open source approaches seem to have very little to say +about why one should use, or contribute to, the vast majority of free +software projects. Because the purported benefits of collaboration +cannot be realized when there is no collaboration, the vast majority +of free development projects are at no technical advantage with respect to a +proprietary competitor.</p> + +<p>For free software advocates, these same projects are each seen as +important successes. Because every piece of free software respects its +users' freedom, advocates of software freedom argue that each piece of +free software begins with an inherent ethical advantage over +proprietary competitors—even a more featureful one. By emphasizing +freedom over practical advantages, free software's advocacy is rooted +in a technical reality in a way that open source is often not. When +free software is better, we can celebrate this fact. When it is not, +we need not treat it as a damning critique of free software advocacy +or even as a compelling argument against the use of the software in +question.</p> + +<p>Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed +software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary +software. Free software supporters can instead ask, “How can we make +free software better?” In a free software framing, high quality software +exists as a means to an end rather than an end itself. Free software +developers should strive to create functional, flexible software that +serves its users well. But doing so is not the only way to make steps +toward solving what is both an easier and a much more profoundly +important goal: respecting and protecting their freedom.</p> + +<p>Of course, we do not need to reject arguments that collaboration can +play an important role in creating high-quality software. In many of +the most successful free software projects, it clearly has done +exactly that. The benefits of collaboration become something to +understand, support, and work towards, rather than something to take +for granted in the face of evidence that refuses to conform to +ideology.</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> + +<!-- 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 © 1999-2011 Benjamin Mako Hill</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/">Creative +Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2016/11/18 06:31:40 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> + |