free-software-for-freedom.html (21780B)
1 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> 2 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> 3 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> 4 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs free-open" --> 5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> 6 <title>Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source” 7 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> 8 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-for-freedom.translist" --> 9 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> 10 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> 11 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> 12 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> 13 <div class="article reduced-width"> 14 <h2>Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”</h2> 15 16 <div class="infobox" style="font-style: italic"> 17 <p>This article has been superseded by a major rewrite, 18 <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">“Open 19 Source” misses the point of Free Software</a>, which is much 20 better. We keep this version for historical reasons.</p> 21 </div> 22 <hr class="thin" /> 23 24 <p> 25 While free software by any other name would give you the same 26 freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words 27 <em>convey different ideas</em>.</p> 28 29 <p> 30 In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using 31 the term <a href="https://opensource.org">“open source 32 software”</a> instead of <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">“free 33 software”</a> to describe what they do. The term “open source” 34 quickly became associated with a different approach, a different 35 philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which 36 licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open 37 Source movement are today <a href="#relationship"> separate 38 movements</a> with different views and goals, although we can and do 39 work together on some practical projects.</p> 40 41 <p> 42 The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their 43 values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source 44 movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a 45 practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, “Open 46 source is a development methodology; free software is a social 47 movement.” For the Open Source movement, nonfree software is a 48 suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, nonfree 49 software is a social problem and free software is the solution.</p> 50 51 <h3 id="relationship">Relationship between the Free Software 52 movement and Open Source movement</h3> 53 54 <p> 55 The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two 56 political camps within the free software community.</p> 57 58 <p> 59 Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for factionalism: 60 organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, 61 and then treated each other as enemies. Or at least, such is the 62 image people have of them, whether or not it was true.</p> 63 64 <p> 65 The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open 66 Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. We disagree on 67 the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical 68 recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific 69 projects. We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. 70 The enemy is 71 <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"> proprietary 72 software</a>.</p> 73 74 <p> 75 We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be 76 lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our 77 community, but we created this community, and we want people to know 78 this. We want people to associate our achievements with our values 79 and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not 80 obscured behind a group with different views. To prevent people from 81 thinking we are part of them, we take pains to avoid using the word 82 “open” to describe free software, or its contrary, 83 “closed,” in talking about nonfree software.</p> 84 85 <p> 86 So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the 87 work we have done, and the software we have developed—such as the 88 <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating system.</p> 89 90 <h3 id="comparison">Comparing the two terms</h3> 91 92 <p> 93 This rest of this article compares the two terms “free software” and 94 “open source.” It shows why the term “open source” does not solve 95 any problems, and in fact creates some.</p> 96 97 <h3 id="ambiguity">Ambiguity</h3> 98 99 <p> 100 The term “free software” has an ambiguity problem: an unintended 101 meaning, “Software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just 102 as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives the user 103 certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing a 104 <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"> more precise definition of free 105 software</a>, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely 106 eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, 107 if it didn't have other problems.</p> 108 109 <p> 110 Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their 111 own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, 112 but none is so clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good 113 idea. Every proposed replacement for “free software” has a similar 114 kind of semantic problem, or worse—and this includes “open source 115 software.”</p> 116 117 <p> 118 The official definition of “open source software,” as published 119 by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition 120 of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, 121 and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably 122 restrictive of the users. 123 124 However, 125 the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” 126 is “You can look at 127 the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free 128 software; it includes free software, but also 129 some <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"> 130 proprietary</a> programs, including Xv, and Qt under its original license 131 (before the QPL).</p> 132 133 <p> 134 That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its 135 advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand 136 what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal 137 Stephenson defined “open source”:</p> 138 139 <blockquote><p> 140 Linux is “open source” software 141 meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files. 142 </p></blockquote> 143 144 <p> 145 I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the 146 “official” definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of 147 the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state 148 of Kansas published a similar definition: 149 <!-- The <a href="http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf"> state of 150 Kansas</a> published a similar definition: --></p> 151 152 <blockquote><p> 153 Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the 154 source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing 155 agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code. 156 </p></blockquote> 157 158 <p> 159 Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by 160 publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for 161 “free software.”</p> 162 163 <p> 164 But the explanation for “free software” is simple—a 165 person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free 166 beer” will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct 167 way to explain the official meaning of “open source” and 168 show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.</p> 169 170 <h3 id="fear">Fear of Freedom</h3> 171 172 <p> 173 The main argument for the term “open source software” is 174 that “free software” makes some people uneasy. That's 175 true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about 176 responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think 177 about things they might rather ignore. This can trigger discomfort, 178 and some people may reject the idea for that. It does not follow that 179 society would be better off if we stop talking about these things.</p> 180 181 <p> 182 Years ago, free software developers noticed this discomfort reaction, 183 and some started exploring an approach for avoiding it. They figured 184 that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about 185 the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might 186 be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain 187 users, especially business. The term “open source” is 188 offered as a way of doing more of this—a way to be “more 189 acceptable to business.” The views and values of the Open Source 190 movement stem from this decision.</p> 191 192 <p> 193 This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. Today many 194 people are switching to free software for purely practical reasons. 195 That is good, as far as it goes, but that isn't all we need to do! 196 Attracting users to free software is not the whole job, just the first 197 step.</p> 198 199 <p> 200 Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to 201 proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless 202 companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? 203 Only if they have learned to <em>value the freedom</em> free software 204 gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to spread this 205 idea—and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A 206 certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business 207 can be useful for the community, but we must have plenty of freedom 208 talk too.</p> 209 210 <p> 211 At present, we have plenty of “keep quiet,” but not enough 212 freedom talk. Most people involved with free software say little 213 about freedom—usually because they seek to be “more 214 acceptable to business.” Software distributors especially show 215 this pattern. Some 216 <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating system 217 distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and 218 they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step 219 backwards from freedom.</p> 220 221 <p> 222 We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, 223 failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as 224 they enter it. This is why nonfree software (which Qt was when it 225 first became popular), and partially nonfree operating system 226 distributions, find such fertile ground. To stop using the word 227 “free” now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about 228 freedom.</p> 229 230 <p> 231 If those using the term “open source” draw more users into our 232 community, that is a contribution, but the rest of us will have to 233 work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those users' 234 attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives you 235 freedom!”—more and louder than ever before.</p> 236 237 <h3 id="newinfeb">Would a Trademark Help?</h3> 238 239 <p> 240 The advocates of “open source software” tried to make it a 241 trademark, saying this would enable them to prevent misuse. This 242 initiative was later dropped, the term being too descriptive to 243 qualify as a trademark; thus, the legal status of “open source” is 244 the same as that of “free software”: there is no <em>legal</em> 245 constraint on using it. I have heard reports of a number of 246 companies' calling software packages “open source” even though they 247 did not fit the official definition; I have observed some instances 248 myself.</p> 249 250 <p> 251 But would it have made a big difference to use a term that is a 252 trademark? Not necessarily.</p> 253 254 <p> 255 Companies also made announcements that give the impression that a 256 program is “open source software” without explicitly saying so. For 257 example, one IBM announcement, about a program that did not fit the 258 official definition, said this:</p> 259 260 <blockquote><p> 261 As is common in the open source community, users of the … 262 technology will also be able to collaborate with IBM… 263 </p></blockquote> 264 265 <p> 266 This did not actually say that the program <em>was</em> “open 267 source,” but many readers did not notice that detail. (I should note 268 that IBM was sincerely trying to make this program free software, and 269 later adopted a new license which does make it free software and 270 “open source”; but when that announcement was made, the program did 271 not qualify as either one.)</p> 272 273 <p> 274 And here is how Cygnus Solutions, which was formed to be a free 275 software company and subsequently branched out (so to speak) into 276 proprietary software, advertised some proprietary software products:</p> 277 278 <blockquote><p> 279 Cygnus Solutions is a leader in the open source market and has just 280 launched two products into the [GNU/]Linux marketplace. 281 </p></blockquote> 282 283 <p> 284 Unlike IBM, Cygnus was not trying to make these packages free 285 software, and the packages did not come close to qualifying. But 286 Cygnus didn't actually say that these are “open source software,” 287 they just made use of the term to give careless readers that 288 impression.</p> 289 290 <p> 291 These observations suggest that a trademark would not have truly 292 prevented the confusion that comes with the term “open source.”</p> 293 294 <h3 id="newinnovember">Misunderstandings(?) of “Open Source”</h3> 295 296 <p> 297 The Open Source Definition is clear enough, and it is quite clear that 298 the typical nonfree program does not qualify. So you would think 299 that “Open Source company” would mean one whose products are free 300 software (or close to it), right? Alas, many companies are trying to 301 give it a different meaning.</p> 302 303 <p> 304 At the “Open Source Developers Day” meeting in August 1998, several 305 of the commercial developers invited said they intend to make only a 306 part of their work free software (or “open source”). The focus of 307 their business is on developing proprietary add-ons (software or 308 <a href="/philosophy/free-doc.html">manuals</a>) to sell to the users of 309 this free software. They ask us to regard this as legitimate, as part 310 of our community, because some of the money is donated to free 311 software development.</p> 312 313 <p> 314 In effect, these companies seek to gain the favorable cachet of 315 “open source” for their proprietary software 316 products—even though those are not “open source 317 software”—because they have some relationship to free 318 software or because the same company also maintains some free 319 software. (One company founder said quite explicitly that they would 320 put, into the free package they support, as little of their work as 321 the community would stand for.)</p> 322 323 <p> 324 Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software 325 development. Some of these companies primarily developed nonfree 326 software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore 327 their nonfree products, and work with them on free software projects. 328 Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software 329 contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did.</p> 330 331 <p> 332 We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't let 333 us. These companies actively invite the public to lump all their 334 activities together; they want us to regard their nonfree software as 335 favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not 336 one. They present themselves as “open source companies,” hoping 337 that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be 338 fuzzy-minded in applying it.</p> 339 340 <p> 341 This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done 342 using the term “free software.” But companies do not seem to use 343 the term “free software” that way; perhaps its association with 344 idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term “open source” opened 345 the door for this.</p> 346 347 <p> 348 At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often 349 referred to 350 as “<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux</a>,” the 351 featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. 352 He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to 353 “support” that system. Unfortunately, their form of 354 “support” consists of releasing nonfree software that 355 works with the system—in other words, using our community as a 356 market but not contributing to it.</p> 357 358 <p> 359 He said, “There is no way we will make our product open source, 360 but perhaps we will make it ‘internal’ open source. If we 361 allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, 362 they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better 363 product and better service.” (This is not an exact quote, as I 364 did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)</p> 365 366 <p> 367 People in the audience afterward told me, “He just doesn't get the 368 point.” But is that so? Which point did he not get?</p> 369 370 <p> 371 He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement 372 does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people 373 to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and 374 better development. The executive grasped that point completely; 375 unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was 376 considering implementing it partially, within the company.</p> 377 378 <p> 379 The point that he missed is the point that “open source” was 380 designed not to raise: the point that users <em>deserve</em> 381 freedom.</p> 382 383 <p> 384 Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job—it needs your help. 385 That's why we stick to the term “free software” in the GNU 386 Project, so we can help do that job. If you feel that freedom and 387 community are important for their own sake—not just for the 388 convenience they bring—please join us in using the term 389 “free software.”</p> 390 <div class="column-limit"></div> 391 392 <!-- The archived version is truncated. 393 <p> 394 Joe Barr wrote an article called 395 <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080703140137/http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">Live and 396 let license [archived]</a> that gives his perspective on this issue.</p> 397 --> 398 <h3 class="footnote">Note</h3> 399 <p> 400 Lakhani and Wolf's 401 <a href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">paper on the 402 motivation of free software developers</a> says that a considerable 403 fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This 404 was despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge, 405 a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.</p> 406 407 <hr class="no-display" /> 408 <div class="edu-note c"><p id="fsfs">This essay is published in 409 <a href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free 410 Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard 411 M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div> 412 </div> 413 414 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 415 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 416 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 417 <div class="unprintable"> 418 419 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a 420 href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. There are also <a 421 href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and other 422 corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a 423 href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 424 425 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 426 replace it with the translation of these two: 427 428 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 429 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 430 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 431 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 432 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 433 434 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 435 our web pages, see <a 436 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 437 README</a>. --> 438 Please see the <a 439 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for 440 information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p> 441 </div> 442 443 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to 444 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should 445 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this 446 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. 447 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the 448 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the 449 document was modified, or published. 450 451 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. 452 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying 453 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable 454 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including 455 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). 456 457 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers 458 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> 459 460 <p>Copyright © 1998-2003, 2007, 2010, 2021 Free Software Foundation, 461 Inc.</p> 462 463 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" 464 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative 465 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> 466 467 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 468 469 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 470 <!-- timestamp start --> 471 $Date: 2021/09/11 09:37:22 $ 472 <!-- timestamp end --> 473 </p> 474 </div> 475 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 476 </body> 477 </html>