[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-software-for-freedom.html o...
|
From: |
Matt Lee |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-software-for-freedom.html o... |
|
Date: |
Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:19:45 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Matt Lee <mattl> 07/02/07 21:19:45
Modified files:
philosophy : free-software-for-freedom.html
Added files:
philosophy : open-source-misses-the-point.html
Log message:
Added new article on request of rms, and added a link from the old one.
Translators, please do your thing.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.27&r2=1.28
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: free-software-for-freedom.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html,v
retrieving revision 1.27
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -b -r1.27 -r1.28
--- free-software-for-freedom.html 27 Nov 2006 01:23:07 -0000 1.27
+++ free-software-for-freedom.html 7 Feb 2007 21:19:33 -0000 1.28
@@ -29,6 +29,8 @@
width="160" height="200" /></a>
</p>
+<p style="font-size: 130%; font-weight: bold;"><a
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">“Open Source”
misses the point of Free Software</a> is an updated version of this article.</p>
+
<p>
While free software by any other name would give you the same
freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words
@@ -490,7 +492,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2006/11/27 01:23:07 $ $Author: ri_st $
+$Date: 2007/02/07 21:19:33 $ $Author: mattl $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.html
===================================================================
RCS file: open-source-misses-the-point.html
diff -N open-source-misses-the-point.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.html 7 Feb 2007 21:19:33 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,335 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+
+<title>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free
Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software</h2>
+
+<p>by Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the <a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users'
+essential freedoms</a>: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and
+to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of
+freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,”, not “free
beer.”</p>
+
+<p>These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just
+for the individual users' sake, but because they promote social
+solidarity--that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more
+important as more and more of our culture and life activities are
+digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images and words, free
+software comes increasingly to equate with freedom in general.</p>
+
+<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the
+schools of regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use
+the free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux operating system</a>.
But most of these users have
+never heard of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system
+and built the free software community, because today this system and
+community are more often described as “open source,” and attributed
+to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly
+mentioned.</p>
+
+<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom
+since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating
+system GNU, so we could avoid the non-free operating systems that deny
+freedom to their users. During the 80s, we developed most of the
+essential components of such a system, as well as the <a
href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General
+Public License</a>, a license designed specifically to protect freedom for
+all users of a program.</p>
+
+<p>However, not all of the users and developers of free software agreed
+with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part of the
+free software community splintered off and began campaigning in the
+name of “open source.” The term was originally proposed to avoid a
+possible misunderstanding of the term “free software,” but it soon
+became associated with philosophical views quite different from those
+of the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the proponents of “open source” considered it a
“marketing
+campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business
+executives by citing practical benefits, while avoiding ideas of right
+and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other proponents flatly
+rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values.
+Whichever their views, when campaigning for “open source” they did
+not cite or advocate those values. The term “open source” quickly
+became associated with the practice of citing only practical values,
+such as making powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of
+“open source” have come to it since then, and that practice is
+what they take it to mean.</p>
+
+<p>Nearly all open source software is free software; the two terms
+describe almost the same category of software. But they stand for
+views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a
+development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the
+free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
+because only free software respects the users' freedom. By contrast,
+the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make
+software “better”--in a practical sense only. It says that
non-free
+software is a suboptimal solution. For the free software movement,
+however, non-free software is a social problem, and moving to free
+software is the solution.</p>
+
+<p>Free software. Open source. If it's the same software, does it
+matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey
+different ideas. 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.”</p>
+
+<p>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp
+as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary software. But we want people to
+know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being misidentified as
+open source supporters.</p>
+
+<h3>Common misunderstandings of “free software” and “open
source”</h3>
+
+<p>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 which 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 “right” 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.”</p>
+
+<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/def_print.php";>official
+definition of “open source software”</a> (which is
+published by the Open Source Initiative and too long to cite here) was
+derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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”:</p>
+
+ <blockquote>Linux is “open source” software meaning, simply,
that anyone can
+ get copies of its source code files.</blockquote>
+
+<p>I don't think he 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:</p>
+
+ <blockquote>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.</blockquote>
+
+<p>The open source people 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.</p>
+
+<h3>Different values can lead to similar conclusions...but not always</h3>
+
+<p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
+organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
+and the two daughter 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 backwards. 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and
+redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable.
+But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are
+not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program which
+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?</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and
+defend it.</p>
+
+<h3>Powerful, reliable software can be bad</h3>
+
+<p>The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes from
+the supposition that software is meant to serve its users. If it is
+powerful and reliable, it serves them better.</p>
+
+<p>But software can only be said to serve its users if it respects their
+freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its users?
+Then reliability only means the chains are harder to remove.</p>
+
+<p>Under the pressure of the movie and record companies, software for
+individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
+them. This malicious feature is known as DRM, or Digital Restrictions
+Management (see <a
+href="http://defectivebydesign.org/";>DefectiveByDesign.org</a>), and
+it is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
+to provide. And not just in spirt: since the goal of DRM is to
+trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
+or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.</p>
+
+<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source DRM”
+software. Their idea is that by publishing the source code of
+programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media, and
+allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and
+reliable software for restricting users like you. Then it will be
+delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
+
+<p>This software might be “open source,” and use the open source
+development model; but it won't be free software, since it won't
+respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the open
+source development model succeeds in making this software more
+powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even
+worse.</p>
+
+<h3>Fear of freedom</h3>
+
+<p>The main initial motivation for the term “open source software”
is
+that the ethical ideas of “free software” make 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 prefer to ignore, such as whether their
+conduct is ethical. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may
+simply close their minds to it. It does not follow that we ought to
+stop talking about these things.</p>
+
+<p>However, that is what the leaders of “open source” decided to
do.
+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.</p>
+
+<p>This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric of
+open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and
+even develop, free software, which has extended our community--but only
+at the superficial, practical level. The philosophy of open source,
+with its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper
+ideas of free software; it brings many people into our commnunity, but
+does not teach them to defend it. That is good, as far as it goes,
+but it is not enough to make freedom secure. Attracting users to free
+software takes them just part of the way to becoming defenders of
+their own freedom.</p>
+
+<p>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, some even offering copies
+gratis. Why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value
+the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom as such rather
+than the technical and practical convenience of specific free
+software. To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom. A
+certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be
+useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common
+that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.</p>
+
+<p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. 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. Nearly all GNU/Linux
+operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic
+free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage,
+rather than a step backwards from freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially non-free GNU/Linux
+distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does
+not insist on freedom with its software. This is no coincidence.
+Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system by “open source”
+discussion which doesn't say that freedom is a goal. The practices
+that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk about freedom
+go hand in hand, each promoting the other. To overcome this tendency,
+we need more, not less, talk about freedom.</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we
+free software activists have to work even more to bring the issue of
+freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, “It's free
+software and it gives you freedom!”--more and louder than ever.
+Every time you say “free software” rather than “open
source,” you
+help our campaign.</p>
+
+<h4>Footnotes</h4>
+
+<p>
+Joe Barr wrote an article called
+<a href="http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/";>Live and
+let license</a> that gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
+
+<p>
+Lakhani and Wolf's
+<a href="http://freesoftware.mit.edu/papers/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>paper on the
+motivation of free software developers</a> says that a considerable
+fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This
+was despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge,
+a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+
+<div id="footer">
+<p>
+Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+There are also <a href="http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html";>other ways to
contact</a>
+the FSF.
+<br />
+Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007 Richard Stallman</p>
+<p>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2007/02/07 21:19:33 $ $Author: mattl $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
+<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
+<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
+<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
+<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
+
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy free-software-for-freedom.html o...,
Matt Lee <=