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.”