diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html | 583 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 583 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html deleted file mode 100644 index d76546b..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,583 +0,0 @@ -<!-- 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"/> - |