when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html (10272B)
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 practice" --> 5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> 6 <title> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> 7 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist" --> 8 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> 9 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> 10 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> 11 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> 12 <div class="article reduced-width"> 13 <h2> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior</h2> 14 15 <address class="byline"> 16 by <a href="https://mako.cc/writing/">Benjamin Mako Hill</a></address> 17 18 <p>The Open Source Initiative's mission statement reads, “Open source 19 is a development method for software that harnesses the power of 20 distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of 21 open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, 22 lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.”</p> 23 24 <p>For more than a decade now, the Free Software Foundation has argued 25 against this “open source” characterization of the free software 26 movement. Free software advocates have primarily argued against this 27 framing because “open source” is an explicit effort to deemphasize 28 our core message of freedom and obscure our movement's role in the 29 success of the software we have built. We have argued that “open 30 source” is bad, fundamentally, because it attempts to keep people from 31 talking about software freedom. But there is another reason we should 32 be wary of the open source framing. The fundamental open source 33 argument, as quoted in the mission statement above, is often 34 incorrect.</p> 35 36 <p>Although the Open Source Initiative suggests “the promise of open 37 source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,” this 38 promise is not always realized. Although we do not often advertise the 39 fact, any user of an early-stage free software project can explain 40 that free software is not always as convenient, in purely practical 41 terms, as its proprietary competitors. Free software is sometimes low 42 quality. It is sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible. If 43 people take the arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must 44 explain why open source has not lived up to its “promise” and conclude 45 that proprietary tools would be a better choice. There is no reason we 46 should have to do either.</p> 47 48 <p>Richard Stallman speaks to this in his article on <a 49 href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why 50 Open Source Misses the Point</a> when he explains, “The idea of open 51 source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software 52 will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not 53 guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily 54 incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and 55 reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.”</p> 56 57 <p>For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained 58 away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software, 59 it is a problem to be worked through. For free software advocates, 60 glitches and missing features are never a source of shame. 61 Any piece of free software that respects users' freedom has a strong 62 inherent advantage over a proprietary competitor that does not. Even 63 if it has other issues, free software always has freedom.</p> 64 65 <p>Of course, every piece of free software must start somewhere. A brand-new 66 piece of software, for example, is unlikely to be more featureful 67 than an established proprietary tool. Projects 68 begin with many bugs and improve over time. While open 69 source advocates might argue that a project will grow into usefulness 70 over time and with luck, free software projects represent important 71 contributions on day one to a free software advocate. Every piece of 72 software that gives users control over their technology is a step 73 forward. Improved quality as a project matures is the icing on the 74 cake.</p> 75 76 <p>A second, perhaps even more damning, fact is that the collaborative, 77 distributed, peer-review development process at the heart of the 78 definition of open source bears little resemblance to the practice of 79 software development in the vast majority of projects under free (or 80 “open source”) licenses.</p> 81 82 <p>Several academic studies of <a href="/software/repo-criteria.html"> 83 free software hosting sites</a> SourceForge and <a 84 href="https://sv.gnu.org">Savannah</a> have shown what many free 85 software developers who have put a codebase online already know 86 first-hand. The vast majority of free software projects are not 87 particularly collaborative. The median number of contributors to a 88 free software project on SourceForge? One. A lone 89 developer. SourceForge projects at the ninety-fifth percentile by 90 participant size have only five contributors. More than half of these 91 free software projects—and even most projects that have made several 92 successful releases and been downloaded frequently, are the work of a 93 single developer with little outside help.</p> 94 95 <p>By emphasizing the power of collaborative development and “distributed 96 peer review,” open source approaches seem to have very little to say 97 about why one should use, or contribute to, the vast majority of free 98 software projects. Because the purported benefits of collaboration 99 cannot be realized when there is no collaboration, the vast majority 100 of free development projects are at no technical advantage with respect to a 101 proprietary competitor.</p> 102 103 <p>For free software advocates, these same projects are each seen as 104 important successes. Because every piece of free software respects its 105 users' freedom, advocates of software freedom argue that each piece of 106 free software begins with an inherent ethical advantage over 107 proprietary competitors—even a more featureful one. By emphasizing 108 freedom over practical advantages, free software's advocacy is rooted 109 in a technical reality in a way that open source is often not. When 110 free software is better, we can celebrate this fact. When it is not, 111 we need not treat it as a damning critique of free software advocacy 112 or even as a compelling argument against the use of the software in 113 question.</p> 114 115 <p>Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed 116 software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary 117 software. Free software supporters can instead ask, “How can we make 118 free software better?” In a free software framing, high quality software 119 exists as a means to an end rather than an end itself. Free software 120 developers should strive to create functional, flexible software that 121 serves its users well. But doing so is not the only way to make steps 122 toward solving what is both an easier and a much more profoundly 123 important goal: respecting and protecting their freedom.</p> 124 125 <p>Of course, we do not need to reject arguments that collaboration can 126 play an important role in creating high-quality software. In many of 127 the most successful free software projects, it clearly has done 128 exactly that. The benefits of collaboration become something to 129 understand, support, and work towards, rather than something to take 130 for granted in the face of evidence that refuses to conform to 131 ideology.</p> 132 </div> 133 134 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 135 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 136 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 137 <div class="unprintable"> 138 139 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to 140 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. 141 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 142 the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent 143 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 144 145 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 146 replace it with the translation of these two: 147 148 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 149 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 150 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 151 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 152 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 153 154 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 155 our web pages, see <a 156 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 157 README</a>. --> 158 Please see the <a 159 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 160 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations 161 of this article.</p> 162 </div> 163 164 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to 165 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should 166 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this 167 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. 168 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the 169 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the 170 document was modified, or published. 171 172 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. 173 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying 174 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable 175 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including 176 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). 177 178 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers 179 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> 180 181 <p>Copyright © 1999-2011 Benjamin Mako Hill</p> 182 183 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" 184 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/">Creative 185 Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>.</p> 186 187 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 188 189 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 190 <!-- timestamp start --> 191 $Date: 2021/09/05 10:10:11 $ 192 <!-- timestamp end --> 193 </p> 194 </div> 195 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 196 </body> 197 </html>