open-source-misses-the-point.html (28135B)
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 Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 7 Free Software Foundation</title> 8 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.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!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--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 Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software</h2> 15 16 <address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address> 17 18 <div class="important"><p> 19 The terms “free software” and “open 20 source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However, 21 they say deeply different things about those programs, based on 22 different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom 23 for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. 24 By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage 25 and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree 26 with open source, and do not use that term. 27 </p></div> 28 29 <p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects 30 the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential freedoms</a>: 31 the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute 32 copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not 33 price, so think of “free speech,” not “free 34 beer.”</p> 35 36 <p>These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just 37 for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they 38 promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They 39 become even more important as our culture and life activities are 40 increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, 41 free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.</p> 42 43 <p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; 44 the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all 45 students to use the free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux 46 operating system</a>. Most of these users, however, have never heard of 47 the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free 48 software community, because nowadays this system and community are more 49 often spoken of as “open source,” attributing them to a 50 different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p> 51 52 <p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' 53 freedom since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free 54 operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems 55 that deny freedom to their users. During the 1980s, we developed most 56 of the essential components of the system and designed 57 the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) 58 to release them under—a license designed specifically to protect 59 freedom for all users of a program.</p> 60 61 <p>Not all of the users and developers of free software 62 agreed with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part 63 of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in 64 the name of “open source.” The term was originally 65 proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free 66 software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical 67 views quite different from those of the free software movement.</p> 68 69 <p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a 70 “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal 71 to business executives by highlighting the software's practical 72 benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might 73 not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software 74 movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when 75 campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those 76 values. The term “open source” quickly became associated 77 with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as 78 making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters 79 of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same 80 association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no 81 attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's 82 a <a href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"> 83 typical example</a>. A minority of supporters of open source do 84 nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible 85 among the many that don't.</p> 86 87 <p>The two now 88 describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for 89 views based on fundamentally different values. For the 90 free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, 91 essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, 92 the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make 93 software “better”—in a practical sense only. It 94 says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical 95 problem at hand.</p> 96 97 <p>For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a 98 social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free 99 software.</p> 100 101 <p>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same 102 software (<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">or nearly so</a>), 103 does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey 104 different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the 105 same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all 106 on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is 107 essential to speak of “free software.”</p> 108 109 <p>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source 110 camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we 111 want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being 112 mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not 113 “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed 114 source.” To make this clear, we avoid using those terms. 115 </p> 116 117 <h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source</h3> 118 119 <p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than 120 those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free 121 software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open 122 source software is free software, but there are exceptions.</p> 123 124 <p>First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do 125 not qualify as free licenses. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree 126 because its license does not allow making a modified version and using 127 it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.</p> 128 129 <p>Second, the criteria for open source are concerned solely with the 130 licensing of the source code. However, people often describe an 131 executable as “open source,” because its source code is 132 available that way. That causes confusion in paradoxical situations 133 where the source code is open source (and free) but the executable 134 itself is nonfree.</p> 135 136 <p>The trivial case of this paradox is when a program's source code 137 carries a weak free license, one without copyleft, but its executables 138 carry additional nonfree conditions. Supposing the executables 139 correspond exactly to the released sources—which may or may not 140 be so—users can compile the source code to make and distribute 141 free executables. That's why this case is trivial; it is no grave 142 problem.</p> 143 144 <p>The nontrivial case is harmful and important. Many products 145 containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to 146 block users from effectively using different executables; only one 147 privileged company can make executables that can run in the device and 148 use its full capabilities. We call these devices 149 “tyrants,” and the practice is called 150 “tivoization” after the product (Tivo) where we first saw 151 it. Even if the executable is made from free source code, and 152 nominally carries a free license, the users cannot usefully run 153 modified versions of it, so the executable is de-facto nonfree.</p> 154 155 <p>Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of 156 Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2. (We 157 designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this practice; too bad Linux 158 did not adopt it.) These executables, made from source code that is 159 open source and free, are generally spoken of as “open 160 source,” but they are <em>not</em> free software.</p> 161 162 <h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and 163 “Open Source”</h3> 164 165 <p>The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation: 166 an unintended meaning, “software you can get 167 for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended 168 meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.” 169 We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software, 170 and by saying “Think of ‘free speech,’ not ‘free 171 beer.’” This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely 172 eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if 173 it didn't present other problems.</p> 174 175 <p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of 176 their own. We've looked at many that people have 177 suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that switching 178 to it would be a good idea. (For instance, in some contexts the 179 French and Spanish word “libre” works well, but people in India 180 do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed replacement for 181 “free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and 182 this includes “open source software.”</p> 183 184 <p>The <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">official definition of 185 open source software</a> (which is published by the Open 186 Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived 187 indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; 188 it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition 189 agrees with our definition in most cases.</p> 190 191 <p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source 192 software” is “You can look at the source code.” 193 Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand “open source 194 software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is 195 “source available.”) That criterion is much weaker than 196 the free software definition, much weaker also than the official 197 definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither 198 free nor open source.</p> 199 200 <p>Why do people misunderstand it that way? Because that is the 201 natural meaning of the words “open source.” But the 202 concept for which the open source advocates sought another name was 203 a variant of that of free software.</p> 204 205 <p>Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the 206 meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people 207 misunderstand the term. According to writer Neal Stephenson, 208 “Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply, 209 that anyone can get copies of its source code files.” I don't 210 think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the official 211 definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English 212 language to come up with a meaning for the term. The <a 213 href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">state 214 of Kansas</a> published a similar definition: “Make use of 215 open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code 216 is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing 217 agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that 218 code.”</p> 219 220 <p>The <cite>New York Times</cite> <a 221 href="https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"> 222 ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to 223 user beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and 224 give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers 225 have practiced for decades.</p> 226 227 <p>The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment 228 that 229 are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published 230 without a patent</a>. Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable 231 contributions to society, but the term “source code” does 232 not pertain to them.</p> 233 234 <p>Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their 235 official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective 236 for them than it is for us. The term “free software” has 237 two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a 238 person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free 239 beer” will not get it wrong again. But the term “open 240 source” has only one natural meaning, which is different from 241 the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no succinct way to 242 explain and justify its official definition. That makes for worse 243 confusion.</p> 244 245 <p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea 246 that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to 247 accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” 248 means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, 249 since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the 250 open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There 251 are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software 252 licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.</p> 253 254 <p>The term “open source” has been further stretched by 255 its application to other activities, such as government, education, 256 and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where 257 criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only 258 thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite 259 people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only 260 means “participatory” or “transparent,” or 261 less than that. At worst, it 262 has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"> 263 become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</p> 264 265 <h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions—but Not Always</h3> 266 267 <p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some 268 organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, 269 and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite 270 having similar basic goals and values. The right wing made much of 271 this and used it to criticize the entire left.</p> 272 273 <p>Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our 274 disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical 275 groups. They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source 276 camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in 277 many cases to the same practical behavior—such as developing 278 free software.</p> 279 280 <p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open 281 source camp often work together on practical projects such as software 282 development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views 283 can so often motivate different people to participate in the same 284 projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally 285 different views lead to very different actions.</p> 286 287 <p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and 288 redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. 289 But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are 290 not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that 291 is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' 292 freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will 293 react very differently to that.</p> 294 295 <p>A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by 296 the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able 297 to make the program work so well without using our development model, 298 but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward 299 schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.</p> 300 301 <p>The free software activist will say, “Your program is very 302 attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I 303 will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop 304 a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to 305 maintain and defend it.</p> 306 307 <h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3> 308 309 <p>The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes 310 from the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users. 311 If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.</p> 312 313 <p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects 314 their freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its 315 users? Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, 316 and reliability that they are harder to remove. Malicious features, 317 such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and 318 imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open 319 source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.</p> 320 321 <p>Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for 322 individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict 323 them. This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions 324 Management (DRM) (see <a 325 href="https://defectivebydesign.org">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is 326 the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims 327 to provide. And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to 328 trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible, 329 or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.</p> 330 331 <p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source 332 DRM” software. Their idea is that, by publishing the source code 333 of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by 334 allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and 335 reliable software for restricting users like you. The software would then 336 be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.</p> 337 338 <p>This software might be open source and use the open 339 source development model, but it won't be free software since it 340 won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the 341 open source development model succeeds in making this software more 342 powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even 343 worse.</p> 344 345 <h3>Fear of Freedom</h3> 346 347 <p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source 348 camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of 349 free software made some people uneasy. That's true: raising 350 ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as 351 convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer 352 to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger 353 discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It 354 does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.</p> 355 356 <p>That is, however, what the leaders of open source 357 decided to do. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and 358 freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of 359 certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the 360 software more effectively to certain users, especially business.</p> 361 362 <p>When open source proponents talk about anything deeper than that, 363 it is usually the idea of making a “gift” of source code 364 to humanity. Presenting this as a special good deed, beyond what is 365 morally required, presumes that distributing proprietary software 366 without source code is morally legitimate.</p> 367 368 <p>This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric 369 of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, 370 and even develop, free software, which has extended our 371 community—but only at the superficial, practical level. The 372 philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes 373 understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many 374 people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it. That 375 is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom 376 secure. Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the 377 way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.</p> 378 379 <p>Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to 380 proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless 381 companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies 382 gratis. Why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value 383 the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself 384 rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free 385 software. To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom. A 386 certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be 387 useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common 388 that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.</p> 389 390 <p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people 391 involved with free software, especially its distributors, say little about 392 freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to 393 business.” Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add 394 proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to 395 consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.</p> 396 397 <p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux 398 distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does 399 not insist on freedom with its software. This is no coincidence. 400 Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through “open 401 source” discussion, which doesn't say that freedom is a goal. 402 The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk 403 about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other. To overcome 404 this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.</p> 405 406 <h3>“FLOSS” and “FOSS”</h3> 407 408 <p> The terms “FLOSS” and “FOSS” are used to 409 be <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"> neutral between free 410 software and open source</a>. If neutrality is your goal, 411 “FLOSS” is the better of the two, since it really is 412 neutral. But if you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral 413 term isn't the way. Standing up for freedom entails showing people 414 your support for freedom.</p> 415 416 <h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3> 417 418 <p>“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare. 419 Free software and open source are 420 different ideas but, in most people's way of looking at software, they 421 compete for the same conceptual slot. When people become habituated 422 to saying and thinking “open source,” that is an obstacle 423 to their grasping the free software movement's philosophy and thinking 424 about it. If they have already come to associate us and our software 425 with the word “open,” we may need to shock them intellectually 426 before they recognize that we stand for something <em>else</em>. 427 Any activity that promotes the word “open” tends to 428 extend the curtain that hides the ideas of the free software 429 movement.</p> 430 431 <p>Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work 432 on an activity that calls itself “open.” Even if the 433 activity is good in and of itself, each contribution you make does a 434 little harm on the side by promoting the open source idea. There are 435 plenty of other good activities which call themselves 436 “free” or “libre.” Each contribution to those 437 projects does a little extra good on the side. With so many useful 438 projects to choose from, why not choose one which does extra good?</p> 439 440 <h3>Conclusion</h3> 441 442 <p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, 443 we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue 444 of freedom to their attention. We have to say, “It's 445 free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder 446 than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than 447 “open source,” you help our cause.</p> 448 <div class="column-limit"></div> 449 450 <h3 class="footnote">Note</h3> 451 452 <!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013. 453 <p> 454 Joe Barr's article, 455 <a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">“Live and 456 let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p> 457 --> 458 <p> 459 Lakhani and Wolf's <a 460 href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"> 461 paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a 462 considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be 463 free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on 464 SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical 465 issue.</p> 466 </div> 467 468 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 469 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 470 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 471 <div class="unprintable"> 472 473 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a 474 href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. There are also <a 475 href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and other 476 corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a 477 href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 478 479 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 480 replace it with the translation of these two: 481 482 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 483 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 484 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 485 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 486 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 487 488 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 489 our web pages, see <a 490 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 491 README</a>. --> 492 493 Please see the <a 494 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 495 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations 496 of this article.</p> 497 </div> 498 499 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to 500 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should 501 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this 502 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. 503 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the 504 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the 505 document was modified, or published. 506 507 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. 508 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying 509 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable 510 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including 511 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). 512 513 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers 514 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> 515 516 <p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, 2019-2022 Richard Stallman</p> 517 518 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" 519 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative 520 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> 521 522 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 523 524 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 525 <!-- timestamp start --> 526 $Date: 2022/02/03 01:56:01 $ 527 <!-- timestamp end --> 528 </p> 529 </div> 530 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 531 </body> 532 </html>