summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html583
1 files changed, 583 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d76546b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html
@@ -0,0 +1,583 @@
+<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.
+
+Free Software Foundation
+
+51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
+
+Boston, MA 02110-1335
+Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted
+worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is
+preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations
+of this book from the original English into another language provided
+the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and
+the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all
+copies.
+
+ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9
+Cover design by Rob Myers.
+
+Cover photograph by Peter Hinely.
+ -->
+
+
+ <a name="Why-Open-Source-Misses-the-Point-of-Free-Software">
+ </a>
+ <h1 class="chapter">
+ 14. Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
+ </h1>
+ <a name="index-open-source-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-1">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-terminology_002c-importance-of-using-correct-3">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-free-software_002c-essential-difference-between-open-source-and-2">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-open-source_002c-essential-difference-between-free-software-and-2">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users’
+essential freedoms: 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>
+ <a name="index-India-1">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the
+public schools of some regions of India and
+ <a name="index-Spain">
+ </a>
+ Spain now teach all students to use the free GNU/Linux operating
+system. 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>
+ <a name="index-free-software-movement-_0028see-also-GNU-Project_0029">
+ </a>
+ <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 GNU General
+Public License (GNU GPL) to release them under—a license designed
+specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-2">
+ </a>
+ <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>
+ <a name="index-citizen-values_002c-open-source-v_002e-free-software-1">
+ </a>
+ <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.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms
+describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for
+views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a
+development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the
+free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
+because only free software respects 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.
+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>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-teach-others-to-value-freedom">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-use-correct-terminology-_0028see-also-terminology_0029-5">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ “Free software.” “Open source.” If it’s the same software, 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.
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-3">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-free-software_002c-essential-difference-between-open-source-and-3">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-open-source_002c-essential-difference-between-free-software-and-3">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-open-source-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-2">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <a name="Common-Misunderstandings-of-_0060_0060Free-Software_0027_0027-and-_0060_0060Open-Source_0027_0027">
+ </a>
+ <h3 class="subheading">
+ Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open Source”
+ </h3>
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-common-misunderstandings-of">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060free-software_002c_0027_0027-common-misunderstandings-of">
+ </a>
+ <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>
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060free-software_002c_0027_0027-unambiguous-translations-of-1">
+ </a>
+ <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.”
+ <a name="index-India-2">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The official definition of “open source software”
+ <a href="#FOOT29" name="DOCF29">
+ (29)
+ </a>
+ (which is
+published by the
+ <a name="index-Open-Source-Initiative-_0028OSI_0029">
+ </a>
+ 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, so the open source
+people have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably
+restrictive. Also, they judge solely by the license of the source
+code, whereas our criterion also considers whether a device will let
+you
+ <em>
+ run
+ </em>
+ your modified version of the program. 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 that 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
+ <a name="index-Stephenson_002c-Neal">
+ </a>
+ Neal Stephenson, “Linux is ‘open source’ software, meaning simply,
+anyone can get copies of its source code files.”
+ <a href="#FOOT30" name="DOCF30">
+ (30)
+ </a>
+ 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
+ <a name="index-Kansas">
+ </a>
+ Kansas 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>
+ <a name="index-New-York-Times">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ The
+ <cite>
+ New York Times
+ </cite>
+ has run an article that stretches the
+meaning of the term to refer to user beta testing
+ <a href="#FOOT31" name="DOCF31">
+ (31)
+ </a>
+ —letting a few users try an early
+version and give confidential feedback—which proprietary software
+developers have practiced for decades.
+ </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>
+ <a name="index-GPL_002c-_0060_0060open-source_0027_0027-and">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-the-GPL-and">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-GPL_002c-GPL_002dcovered-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-1">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-GPL_002dcovered-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-1">
+ </a>
+ <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.
+ </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.”
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-common-misunderstandings-of-1">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060free-software_002c_0027_0027-common-misunderstandings-of-1">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <a name="Different-Values-Can-Lead-to-Similar-Conclusions_2026but-Not-Always">
+ </a>
+ <h3 class="subheading">
+ 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>
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-4">
+ </a>
+ <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.
+Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement.” If
+we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.
+ </p>
+ <a name="Powerful_002c-Reliable-Software-Can-Be-Bad">
+ </a>
+ <h3 class="subheading">
+ Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad
+ </h3>
+ <a name="index-DRM_002c-open-source-and">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-open-source_002c-DRM-and">
+ </a>
+ <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 name="index-Defective-by-Design-_0028see-also-DRM_0029">
+ </a>
+ <a href="http://defectivebydesign.org">
+ http://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.
+ <a name="index-DRM_002c-open-source-and-1">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-open-source_002c-DRM-and-1">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <a name="Fear-of-Freedom">
+ </a>
+ <h3 class="subheading">
+ Fear of Freedom
+ </h3>
+ <a name="index-open-source_002c-and-fear-of-freedom">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-5">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-citizen-values_002c-convenience-v_002e-4">
+ </a>
+ <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.
+ <a name="index-free-software-movement-_0028see-also-GNU-Project_0029-1">
+ </a>
+ </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>
+ 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.
+ <a name="index-open-source_002c-and-fear-of-freedom-1">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-6">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-citizen-values_002c-convenience-v_002e-5">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <a name="Conclusion-1">
+ </a>
+ <h3 class="subheading">
+ Conclusion
+ </h3>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-teach-others-to-value-freedom-1">
+ </a>
+ <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
+campaign.
+ </p>
+ <a name="Notes">
+ </a>
+ <h4 class="subsubheading">
+ Notes
+ </h4>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ <a name="index-Barr_002c-Joe">
+ </a>
+ Joe Barr’s article “Live and Let License” (ITworld.com, 22 May 2001,
+ <a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">
+ http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4
+ </a>
+ ) gives his perspective on this issue.
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a name="index-Lakhani_002c-Karim-R_002e">
+ </a>
+ Karim R. Lakhani and
+ <a name="index-Wolf_002c-Robert-G_002e">
+ </a>
+ Robert G. Wolf’s paper on the motivation of free
+software developers (“Why
+ <a name="index-hackers-6">
+ </a>
+ Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding
+Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects,” in
+ <cite>
+ Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software,
+ </cite>
+ edited by J. Feller
+and others (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005)) 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
+ <a name="index-SourceForge">
+ </a>
+ SourceForge,
+a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+ <a name="index-terminology_002c-importance-of-using-correct-4">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-7">
+ </a>
+ <div class="footnote">
+ <hr>
+ <h3>
+ Footnotes
+ </h3>
+ <h3>
+ <a href="#DOCF29" name="FOOT29">
+ (29)
+ </a>
+ </h3>
+ <p>
+ See
+ <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">
+ http://opensource.org/docs/osd
+ </a>
+ for the full definition.
+ </p>
+ <h3>
+ <a href="#DOCF30" name="FOOT30">
+ (30)
+ </a>
+ </h3>
+ <p>
+ Neal
+Stephenson,
+ <cite>
+ In the Beginning...Was the Command Line
+ </cite>
+ (New York:
+HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), p. 94.
+ </p>
+ <h3>
+ <a href="#DOCF31" name="FOOT31">
+ (31)
+ </a>
+ </h3>
+ <p>
+ Mary Jane
+Irwin, “The Brave New World of Open-Source Game Design,”
+ <cite>
+ New
+York Times,
+ </cite>
+ online ed., 7 February 2009,
+ <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
+ http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html
+ </a>
+ .
+ </p>
+ </hr>
+ </div>
+ <hr size="2"/>
+