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 about “free software.”
We in the free software movement
don’t think of the open source camp
as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary
(non-free) software. But we want people
to know we stand for freedom, so we do
not accept being misidentified as open
source supporters.
Common misunderstandings of
“free software” and “Open source”
The term “free software” has a problem
of misinterpretation: an unintended
meaning, “software you can get for zero
price,” fits the term just as well as the
intended meaning, “software that 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, correct term would be
better, if it didn’t have other problems.
Unfortunately, all the alternatives
in English have problems of their own.
We’ve looked at many alternatives that
people have suggested, but none is
so clearly correct that switching to it
would be a good idea. Every proposed
replacement for “free software” has
some kind of semantic problem—and
this includes “open source software.”
The official definition of “open
source software,” which is published by
the Open Source Initiative (see http://
opensource.org/docs/osd) and too long
to cite here, was derived indirectly from
our criteria for free software. It is not
Open source is
a development
methodology; free
software is a social
movement.
the same; it is a little looser in some respects, so open source supporters have
accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users.
Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice.
However, the obvious meaning for
the expression “open source software”
is “You can look at the source code,”
and most people seem to think that’s
what it means. That is a much weaker
criterion than free software, and much
weaker than the official definition of
open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open
source. Since that obvious meaning
for “open source” is not the meaning
that its advocates intend, the result
is that most people misunderstand
the term. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined “open source”:
Linux is “open source” software meaning,
simply, that anyone can get copies of its
source code files.
I don’t think Stephenson 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 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.
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 “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
the official definition of “open source.”
That makes for worse confusion.
Another common misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that
it means “not using the GNU GPL.”
It tends to accompany a misunderstanding of “free software,” equating
it to “GPL-covered software.” These are
equally mistaken, since the GNU GPL is
considered an open source license, and
most of the open source licenses are
considered free software licenses.
Different Values Can Lead
to similar Conclusions…
But not always
Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some organizations split because of disagreements
on details of strategy, and the two resultant 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.
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 backward. 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.
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, these views are very different, and
there are situations where they lead to
very different actions.
The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the
soft ware will make it more po werful 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. How will
free software activists and open source
enthusiasts react to that?
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.
The free software activist will say,
“Your program is very attractive, but
not at the price of my freedom. So I have
to do without it. Instead I will support a
project to develop a free replacement.”