[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Fwd: from R.S. on Open Source vs Free Software



Hi,
	what term are we using? I can't totally disagree
with Richard here, especially with the XV/Qt example...

http://mediator.cs.uni-bonn.de/mediator/stallman-opensource.txt
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:23:43 -0700
From: Richard Stallman <rms@santafe.edu>
To: fleck@informatik.uni-bonn.de
Subject: Re: www.gnu.org pages on GPL'ed software
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org

[...]

In the GNU project, we are going to stay with the term
"free software".  Here's an explanation of why:

			It's Still Free Software

There is a move to switch to the term "open source software" instead
of "free software".  While free software by any other name would give
you the same freedom, it does make a difference which name we use.
This article describes the two reasons that have been offered for the
change, and explains why in both respects it is better to stick with
"free software".

* Ambiguity

The term "free software" has an ambiguity problem: an unintended
meaning, "Software you can get for zero price," fits the term just as
well as the intended meaning of software which gives the user certain
freedoms.  We address this problem by publishing a more complete
definition (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), but this
is only a partial solution; it cannot completely eliminate the
problem.  An unambiguously correct term would be better.

But nobody has found an unambiguously correct alternative for "free
software" in English.  (Some langauges, such as French and Spanish,
provide obvious clear terms.)  Every proposed replacement for "free
software" has the same kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this
includes "open source".  Where "free software" has multiple meanings,
not just the intended one, "open source" has just one natural meaning,
and it is not the intended one.

The obvious meaning for "open source" is "You can get the source
code."  This category is distinctly not the same as free software.  It
includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as
Xv, and even non-free programs such as Qt.

Of course, it is possible to address this by publishing a precise
definition for the term, just as we do now for "free software."  The
people using "open source" plan to do just that.  But this partial
solution is only partially effective no matter which term we apply it
to.  For free software, we have to teach people to use one meaning
rather than another which fits the words equally well.  For open
source, we would have to teach them to use a meaning which does not
fit at all.

The semantic problem is real, but switching to "open source" makes it
bigger, not smaller.

* Fear of Freedom

The main argument for the term "open source" is that "free software"
makes some people uneasy.  That's true: talking about freedom, about
ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, is
asking people to think about things they might rather keep out of
mind; this can trigger discomfort.  It does not follow that society
would be better off if we stop talking about these things.

Years ago, free software developers noticed this discomfort reaction,
and some started exploring an approach for avoiding it.  They figured
that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about
the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might
be able to "sell" the software more effectively to certain users,
especially business.  The term "open source" is offered as a way of
doing more of this--a way to be "more acceptable to business".

This approach has proved effective, as far as it goes.  Today many
people are switching to free software for purely practical reasons.
But that isn't all we need to do!  Attracting users to free software
is not the whole job, just the first step.

Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to
proprietary software for some practical advantage.  Countless
companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline?
Only if they have learned to value the freedom in free software for
its own sake.  It is up to us to spread this idea--and in order to do
that, we have to talk about freedom.  A certain amount of the "keep
quiet" approach is useful for the community, but we must have plenty
of freedom talk too.

At present, we have plenty of "keep quiet", but not enough freedom
talk.  Most people involved with free software say little about
freedom--usually because they seek to be "more acceptable to
business".  Software distributors especially show this pattern.
Several operating system distributions are based on free systems with
proprietary programs added; one of them, SuSe Linux, is chock full of
proprietary software, and is carefully designed to make it hard to see
the difference.

We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users,
failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as
they enter it.  This is why non-free software such as Qt and SuSe
finds such fertile ground.  To stop using the word "free" now would be
a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about freedom.

Let's hope that those using the term "open source" will indeed draw
more users into our community; but if they do, the rest of us will
have to work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those users'
attention.  We have to say, "It's free software and it gives you
freedom!"--more and louder than ever before.

Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help.  The
GNU project will stick to the term "free software", and I hope that
most of you will too.


Reply to: