[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-software-for-freedom.html
|
From: |
Karl Berry |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-software-for-freedom.html |
|
Date: |
Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:07:06 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Karl Berry <karl> 06/11/13 01:07:06
Modified files:
philosophy : free-software-for-freedom.html
Log message:
l/rdquo
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.25&r2=1.26
Patches:
Index: free-software-for-freedom.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html,v
retrieving revision 1.25
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -b -r1.25 -r1.26
--- free-software-for-freedom.html 5 May 2005 19:37:14 -0000 1.25
+++ free-software-for-freedom.html 13 Nov 2006 01:07:01 -0000 1.26
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
<p><a href="#translations">Translations</a> of this page</p>
-<h3>Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''</h3>
+<h3>Why “Free Software” is better than “Open
Source”</h3>
<p>
<a href="/graphics/philosophicalgnu.html"><img
src="/graphics/philosophical-gnu-sm.jpg"
alt=" [image of a Philosophical Gnu] "
@@ -36,9 +36,9 @@
<p>
In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using
-the term <a href="http://www.opensource.org/";>``open source
-software''</a> instead of <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">``free
-software''</a> to describe what they do. The term ``open source''
+the term <a href="http://www.opensource.org/";>“open source
+software”</a> instead of <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">“free
+software”</a> to describe what they do. The term “open
source”
quickly became associated with a different approach, a different
philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which
licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open
@@ -50,9 +50,9 @@
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their
values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source
movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a
-practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, ``Open
+practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, “Open
source is a development methodology; free software is a social
-movement.'' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a
+movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a
suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free
software is a social problem and free software is the solution.</p>
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@
and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not
obscured behind a group with different views. To prevent people from
thinking we are part of them, we take pains to avoid using the word
-``open'' to describe free software, or its contrary, ``closed'', in
+“open” to describe free software, or its contrary,
“closed”, in
talking about non-free software.</p>
<p>
@@ -97,16 +97,16 @@
<h4>Comparing the two terms</h4>
<p>
-This rest of this article compares the two terms ``free software'' and
-``open source''. It shows why the term ``open source'' does not solve
+This rest of this article compares the two terms “free software”
and
+“open source”. It shows why the term “open source”
does not solve
any problems, and in fact creates some.</p>
<h4>Ambiguity</h4>
<p>
-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, ``software which gives the user
-certain freedoms.'' We address this problem by publishing a
+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, “software which gives the user
+certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing a
<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"> more precise definition of free
software</a>, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely
eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better,
@@ -115,22 +115,22 @@
<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 a similar
-kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this includes ``open source
-software.''</p>
+but none is so clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good
+idea. Every proposed replacement for “free software” has a similar
+kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this includes “open source
+software.”</p>
<p>
-The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published
+The official definition of “open source software,” as published
by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition
of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects,
and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably
restrictive of the users.
However,
-the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software''
-is ``You can look at
-the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free
+the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”
+is “You can look at
+the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free
software; it includes free software, but also includes
<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#semi-freeSoftware">semi-free</a>
programs such as Xv, and even some
@@ -139,19 +139,19 @@
(before the QPL).</p>
<p>
-That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its
+That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its
advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand
what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal
-Stephenson defined ``open source'':</p>
+Stephenson defined “open source”:</p>
<blockquote><p>
-Linux is ``open source'' software
+Linux is “open source” software
meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the
-``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of
+“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:
<!-- The <a href="http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf";> state of
@@ -166,19 +166,19 @@
<p>
Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by
publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for
-``free software.''</p>
+“free software.”</p>
<p>
-But the explanation for ``free software'' is simple--a person who has
-grasped the idea of ``free speech, not free beer'' will not get it
+But the explanation for “free software” is simple--a person who has
+grasped the idea of “free speech, not free beer” will not get it
wrong again. There is no such succinct way to explain the official
-meaning of ``open source'' and show clearly why the natural definition
+meaning of “open source” and show clearly why the natural
definition
is the wrong one.</p>
<h4>Fear of Freedom</h4>
<p>
-The main argument for the term ``open source software'' is that ``free
-software'' makes some people uneasy. That's true: talking about
+The main argument for the term “open source software” 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
ignore. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may reject the
@@ -190,9 +190,9 @@
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.'' The
+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.” The
views and values of the Open Source movement stem from this decision.</p>
<p>
@@ -209,14 +209,14 @@
Only if they have learned to <em>value the freedom</em> free software
gives them, 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 to business can be useful for the
+of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be useful for the
community, but we must have plenty of freedom talk too.</p>
<p>
-At present, we have plenty of ``keep quiet'', but not enough freedom
+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. Some
+freedom--usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to
+business.” Software distributors especially show this pattern. Some
<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating system
distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and
they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step
@@ -228,25 +228,25 @@
they enter it. This is why non-free software (which Qt was when it
first became popular), and partially non-free operating system
distributions, find such fertile ground. To stop using the word
-``free'' now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about
+“free” now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about
freedom.</p>
<p>
-If those using the term ``open source'' draw more users into our
+If those using the term “open source” draw more users into our
community, that is a contribution, but 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.</p>
+attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives you
+freedom!”--more and louder than ever before.</p>
<h4><a id="newinfeb">Would a Trademark Help?</a></h4>
<p>
-The advocates of ``open source software'' tried to make it a
+The advocates of “open source software” tried to make it a
trademark, saying this would enable them to prevent misuse. This
initiative was later dropped, the term being too descriptive to
-qualify as a trademark; thus, the legal status of ``open source'' is
-the same as that of ``free software'': there is no <em>legal</em>
+qualify as a trademark; thus, the legal status of “open source” is
+the same as that of “free software”: there is no <em>legal</em>
constraint on using it. I have heard reports of a number of
-companies' calling software packages ``open source'' even though they
+companies' calling software packages “open source” even though they
did not fit the official definition; I have observed some instances
myself.</p>
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@
<p>
Companies also made announcements that give the impression that a
-program is ``open source software'' without explicitly saying so. For
+program is “open source software” without explicitly saying so.
For
example, one IBM announcement, about a program that did not fit the
official definition, said this:</p>
@@ -266,11 +266,11 @@
</p></blockquote>
<p>
-This did not actually say that the program <em>was</em> ``open
-source'', but many readers did not notice that detail. (I should note
+This did not actually say that the program <em>was</em> “open
+source”, but many readers did not notice that detail. (I should note
that IBM was sincerely trying to make this program free software, and
later adopted a new license which does make it free software and
-``open source''; but when that announcement was made, the program did
+“open source”; but when that announcement was made, the program did
not qualify as either one.)</p>
<p>
@@ -286,26 +286,26 @@
<p>
Unlike IBM, Cygnus was not trying to make these packages free
software, and the packages did not come close to qualifying. But
-Cygnus didn't actually say that these are ``open source software'',
+Cygnus didn't actually say that these are “open source software”,
they just made use of the term to give careless readers that
impression.</p>
<p>
These observations suggest that a trademark would not have truly
-prevented the confusion that comes with the term ``open source''.</p>
+prevented the confusion that comes with the term “open source”.</p>
-<h4><a id="newinnovember"> Misunderstandings(?) of ``Open Source''</a></h4>
+<h4><a id="newinnovember"> Misunderstandings(?) of “Open
Source”</a></h4>
<p>
The Open Source Definition is clear enough, and it is quite clear that
the typical non-free program does not qualify. So you would think
-that ``Open Source company'' would mean one whose products are free
+that “Open Source company” would mean one whose products are free
software (or close to it), right? Alas, many companies are trying to
give it a different meaning.</p>
<p>
-At the ``Open Source Developers Day'' meeting in August 1998, several
+At the “Open Source Developers Day” meeting in August 1998, several
of the commercial developers invited said they intend to make only a
-part of their work free software (or ``open source''). The focus of
+part of their work free software (or “open source”). The focus of
their business is on developing proprietary add-ons (software or
<a href="/philosophy/free-doc.html">manuals</a>) to sell to the users of
this free software. They ask us to regard this as legitimate, as part
@@ -313,9 +313,9 @@
software development.</p>
<p>
-In effect, these companies seek to gain the favorable cachet of ``open
-source'' for their proprietary software products--even though those
-are not ``open source software''--because they have some relationship
+In effect, these companies seek to gain the favorable cachet of “open
+source” for their proprietary software products--even though those
+are not “open source software”--because they have some relationship
to free software or because the same company also maintains some free
software. (One company founder said quite explicitly that they would
put, into the free package they support, as little of their work as
@@ -334,38 +334,38 @@
us. These companies actively invite the public to lump all their
activities together; they want us to regard their non-free software as
favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not
-one. They present themselves as ``open source companies,'' hoping
+one. They present themselves as “open source companies,” hoping
that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be
fuzzy-minded in applying it.</p>
<p>
This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done
-using the term ``free software.'' But companies do not seem to use
-the term ``free software'' that way; perhaps its association with
-idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term ``open source'' opened
+using the term “free software.” But companies do not seem to use
+the term “free software” that way; perhaps its association with
+idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term “open source” opened
the door for this.</p>
<p>
At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often
-referred to as <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">``Linux''</a>, the
+referred to as <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">“Linux”</a>, the
featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company.
He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to
-``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support''
+“support” that system. Unfortunately, their form of
“support”
consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in
other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to
it.</p>
<p>
-He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but
+He said, “There is no way we will make our product open source, but
perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our
customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could
fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and
-better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his
+better service.” (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his
words down, but it gets the gist.)</p>
<p>
-People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the
-point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?</p>
+People in the audience afterward told me, “He just doesn't get the
+point.” But is that so? Which point did he not get?</p>
<p>
He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement
@@ -376,16 +376,16 @@
considering implementing it partially, within the company.</p>
<p>
-The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was
+The point that he missed is the point that “open source” was
designed not to raise: the point that users <em>deserve</em>
freedom.</p>
<p>
Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help.
-That's why we stick to the term ``free software'' in the GNU Project,
+That's why we stick to the term “free software” in the GNU Project,
so we can help do that job. If you feel that freedom and community
are important for their own sake--not just for the convenience they
-bring--please join us in using the term ``free software''.</p>
+bring--please join us in using the term “free software”.</p>
<hr />
@@ -489,7 +489,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2005/05/05 19:37:14 $ $Author: novalis $
+$Date: 2006/11/13 01:07:01 $ $Author: karl $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
- www/philosophy free-software-for-freedom.html,
Karl Berry <=