summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_14.html
blob: d76546b8c5b5f21cb73f44763ee71a88beb8f6dc (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
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"/>