www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.html


From: Richard M. Stallman
Subject: www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.html
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:55:14 +0000

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       09/09/27 00:55:14

Modified files:
        philosophy     : open-source-misses-the-point.html 

Log message:
        Many minor clarifications, some suggested by jrasata.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.28&r2=1.29

Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html,v
retrieving revision 1.28
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -u -b -r1.28 -r1.29
--- open-source-misses-the-point.html   22 Jun 2009 15:03:33 -0000      1.28
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.html   27 Sep 2009 00:54:32 -0000      1.29
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 
-<title>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free 
Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free 
Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
    
-<h2>Why &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo; misses the point of Free Software</h2>
+<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
 
 <p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
 
@@ -16,31 +16,30 @@
 beer.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p>These freedoms are vitally important.  They are essential, not just
-for the individual users' sake, but because they promote social
+for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they 
promote social
 solidarity&mdash;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>
+more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized.
+In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free
+software becomes increasingly essential for 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
+system</a>.  Most of these users, however, 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 &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; and attributed to a different
+community, because nowadays this system and community are more often
+spoken of as &ldquo;open source,&rdquo;, attributing them 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
+operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems 
that deny freedom to their users.  During the 1980s, we developed most
+of the essential components of the system and designed
+the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) to 
release them under&mdash;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
+<p>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 &ldquo;open source.&rdquo; The term was originally
@@ -48,70 +47,68 @@
 software,&rdquo; but it soon became associated with philosophical
 views quite different from those of the free software movement.</p>
 
-<p>Some of the proponents of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; considered it a
+<p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a
 &ldquo;marketing campaign for free software,&rdquo; 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
+to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, 
while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear.  
Other
+supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and
 social values.  Whichever their views, when campaigning for
-&ldquo;open source&rdquo; they did not cite or advocate those values.
-The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; quickly became associated with the
-practice of citing only practical values, such as making powerful,
-reliable software.  Most of the supporters of &ldquo;open
-source&rdquo; have come to it since then, and that practice is what
-they take it to mean.</p>
+open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values.
+The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; quickly became associated with
+ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having 
powerful,
+reliable software.  Most of the supporters of open
+source have come to it since then, and they make the same association.</p>
 
-<p>Nearly all open source software is free software; the two terms
-describe almost the same category of software.  But they stand for
+<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 &ldquo;better&rdquo;&mdash;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>
+says that nonfree software is a suboptimal solution to a practical
+problem.  For the free software movement, however, nonfree 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
+<p>&ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;free
+help do this, it is essential to speak of &ldquo;free
 software.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p>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
+camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software.  But
 we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
-misidentified as open source supporters.</p>
+mislabeled as open source supporters.</p>
 
-<h3>Common misunderstandings of &ldquo;free software&rdquo; and
-&ldquo;open source&rdquo;</h3>
+<h3>Common Misunderstandings of &lsquo;Free Software&rsquo; and
+&lsquo;Open Source&rsquo;</h3>
 
-<p>The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has a problem of
-misinterpretation: an unintended meaning, &ldquo;software you can get
+<p>The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is prone to misinterpretation:
+an unintended meaning, &ldquo;software you can get
 for zero price,&rdquo; fits the term just as well as the intended
 meaning, &ldquo;software which gives the user certain freedoms.&rdquo;
 We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software,
-and by saying &ldquo;Think of free speech, not free beer.&rdquo; This
+and by saying &ldquo;Think of &lsquo;free speech,&rsquo; not &lsquo;free 
beer.&rsquo;&rdquo; 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
+An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if it didn't present other
 problems.</p>
 
 <p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of
-their own.  We've looked at many alternatives that people have
+their own.  We've looked at many that people have
 suggested, but none is so clearly &ldquo;right&rdquo; that switching
 to it would be a good idea.  (For instance, in some contexts the
-French/Spanish word "libre" can be used, but people in India do not
-recognize the word at all.)  Every proposed replacement for
+French and Spanish word &ldquo;libre&rdquo; works well, but people in India do 
not
+recognize it at all.)  Every proposed replacement for
 &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has some kind of semantic
 problem&mdash;and this includes &ldquo;open source
 software.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>official
 definition of &ldquo;open source software&rdquo;</a> (which is 
-published by the Open Source Initiative and too long to cite here) was
+published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include 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
@@ -119,64 +116,58 @@
 definition in practice.</p>
 
 <p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression &ldquo;open source
-software&rdquo; is &ldquo;You can look at the source code,&rdquo; 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>
+software&rdquo;&mdash;and the one most people seem to think it
+means&mdash;is &ldquo;You can look at the source code.&rdquo; That
+criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much
+weaker also 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 &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is not the
 meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
-misunderstand the term.  Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined
-&ldquo;open source&rdquo;:</p>
-
-  <blockquote><p>Linux is &ldquo;open source&rdquo; 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
+misunderstand the term.  According to writer Neal Stephenson,
+&ldquo;Linux is &lsquo;open source&rsquo; software meaning, simply,
+that anyone can get copies of its source code files.&rdquo; I don't
+think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the
 &ldquo;official&rdquo; 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>
+term.  The state of Kansas published a similar definition:
 <!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf,
-but that page is no longer available. -->
-
-  <blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote>
+but that page is no longer available. --> &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
 
-<p>The New York Times
+<p>The <i>New York Times</i>
 has <a 
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>
-stretched the term</a> to refer to user beta testing &mdash; letting a
-few users try an early version and give confidential feedback &mdash;
-which proprietary software developers have practiced for decades.</p>
+run an article that stretches the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
+user beta testing&mdash;letting a few users try an early version and
+give confidential feedback&mdash;which proprietary software developers
+have practiced for decades.</p>
 
 <p>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 &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has
 two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a
 person who has grasped the idea of &ldquo;free speech, not free
-beer&rdquo; will not get it wrong again.  But &ldquo;open
+beer&rdquo; will not get it wrong again.  But the term &ldquo;open
 source&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;open
-source.&rdquo; That makes for worse confusion.</p>
+explain and justify its official definition.  That makes for worse 
confusion.</p>
 
 <p>Another misunderstanding of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is the idea
-that it means &ldquo;not using the GNU GPL&rdquo;.  It tends to
-accompany a misundertanding of &ldquo;free software&rdquo;, equating
-it to &ldquo;GPL-covered software&rdquo;.  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.</p>
+that it means &ldquo;not using the GNU GPL.&rdquo; This tends to
+accompany another misunderstanding that &ldquo;free software&rdquo;
+means &ldquo;GPL-covered software.&rdquo; These are equally mistaken,
+since the GNU GPL is accepted as an open source license and most of
+the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.</p>
 
-<h3>Different values can lead to similar conclusions&hellip;but not always</h3>
+<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions&hellip;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>
+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
@@ -189,16 +180,16 @@
 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>
+projects.  Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally
+different views 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
+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?</p>
+freedom.   Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will
+react very differently to that.</p>
 
 <p>A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by
 the ideals of free software, will say, &ldquo;I am surprised you were able
@@ -207,61 +198,60 @@
 schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.</p>
 
 <p>The free software activist will say, &ldquo;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
+attractive, but I value my freedom more.  So I reject your program.
+Instead I will support a project to develop a free
 replacement.&rdquo;  If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and
 defend it.</p>
 
-<h3>Powerful, reliable software can be bad</h3>
+<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 the software is designed to serve its users.
 If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.</p>
 
-<p>But software can only be said to serve its users if it respects
+<p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects
 their freedom.  What if the software is designed to put chains on its
-users?  Then powerfulness only means the chains are more constricting,
+users?  Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting,
 and reliability that they are harder to remove.  Malicious features,
 such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and
 imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open
-source supporters want to do likewise.</p>
+source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.</p>
 
-<p>Under the pressure of the movie and record companies, software for
+<p>Under pressure from 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
+them.  This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
+Management (DRM) (see <a
+href="http://defectivebydesign.org/";>DefectiveByDesign.org</a> and is
+the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
 to provide.  And not just in spirit: 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 &ldquo;open source
-DRM&rdquo; software.  Their idea is that by publishing the source code
-of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media, and
+DRM&rdquo; software.  Their idea is that, by publishing the source code
+of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by
 allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and
-reliable software for restricting users like you.  Then it will be
+reliable software for restricting users like you.  The software would then be
 delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
 
-<p>This software might be &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; and use the open
-source development model; but it won't be free software, since it
+<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>
+<h3>Fear of Freedom</h3>
 
-<p>The main initial motivation for the term &ldquo;open source
-software&rdquo; is that the ethical ideas of &ldquo;free
-software&rdquo; make some people uneasy.  That's true: talking about
-freedom, about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as
+<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source
+camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
+&ldquo;free software&rdquo; made some people uneasy.  That's true: raising 
ethical issues such as freedom, talking 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>
+does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.</p>
 
-<p>However, that is what the leaders of &ldquo;open source&rdquo;
+<p>That is, however, 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 &ldquo;sell&rdquo; the
@@ -282,7 +272,7 @@
 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
+the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself 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 &ldquo;keep quiet&rdquo; approach to business can be
@@ -290,18 +280,18 @@
 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&mdash;usually
+involved with free software, especially its distributors, say little about 
freedom&mdash;usually
 because they seek to be &ldquo;more acceptable to business.&rdquo;
-Software distributors especially show this pattern.  Nearly all
+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>
+advantage rather than a flaw.</p>
 
-<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially non-free GNU/Linux
+<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree 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 &ldquo;open
-source&rdquo; discussion which doesn't say that freedom is a goal.
+Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; 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>
@@ -309,8 +299,8 @@
 <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, &ldquo;It's
+we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue
+of freedom to their attention.  We have to say, &ldquo;It's
 free software and it gives you freedom!&rdquo;&mdash;more and louder
 than ever.  Every time you say &ldquo;free software&rdquo; rather than
 &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help our campaign.</p>
@@ -318,9 +308,9 @@
 <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>
+Joe Barr's article, 
+<a href="http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/";>&ldquo;Live and
+let license,&rdquo;</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
 
 <p>
 Lakhani and Wolf's
@@ -354,7 +344,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/06/22 15:03:33 $
+$Date: 2009/09/27 00:54:32 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
@@ -368,7 +358,7 @@
 
 <ul class="translations-list">
 <!-- Arabic -->
-<li><a hreflang="ar" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ar.html">&#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1585;&#1576;&#1610;&#1577;</a>&nbsp;[ar]</li>
+<li><a hreflang="ar" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ar.html">&#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1585;&#1576;&#1610;&#1577;</a>&nbsp;[At]</li>
 <!-- Bulgarian -->
 <li><a hreflang="bg" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html">&#x431;&#x44A;&#x43B;&#x433;&#x430;&#x440;&#x441;&#x43A;&#x438;</a>&nbsp;[bg]</li>
 <!-- German -->




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]