[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.hr....
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.hr.... |
|
Date: |
Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:30:28 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 14/01/19 19:30:28
Modified files:
philosophy : open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : open-source-misses-the-point.hr-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html 23 Sep 2013 19:27:57 -0000
1.8
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html 19 Jan 2014 19:30:26 -0000
1.9
@@ -11,6 +11,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.hr.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-11-20" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.hr.html" -->
<h2>Zašto otvoreni izvorni kod promašuje smisao slobodnog softvera</h2>
<p>napisao <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
@@ -418,7 +425,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Zadnji put promijenjeno:
-$Date: 2013/09/23 19:27:57 $
+$Date: 2014/01/19 19:30:26 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-diff.html
diff -N po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-diff.html 19 Jan 2014 19:30:27
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,436 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project -
+Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
+
+<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></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 for society as a whole because they
+promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They
+become even 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 public schools of some 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>. 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 nowadays this system and community are more
+often spoken of as “open source”, 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 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—a license designed specifically to protect
+freedom for all users of a program.</p>
+
+<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 “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 supporters of open source considered the term a
+“marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal
+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 open source, they neither cited nor advocated those
+values. The term “open source” 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>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,
+essential respect for 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 nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical
+problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no
+attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's
+a <a
href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">
+typical example</a>.</p>
+
+<p>For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a
+social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free
+software.</p>
+
+<p>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the
same
+software (<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">or nearly
so</a>),
+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 of “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 (nonfree) software. But
+we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
+mislabeled as open source supporters.</p>
+
+<h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open
Source</h3>
+
+<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than
+those of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software
+would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free
+software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses
+are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.
+Fortunately, few programs use those licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Second, and more important, many products containing computers
+(including many Android devices) come with executable programs that
+correspond to free software source code, but the devices do not allow
+the user to install modified versions of those executables; only one
+special company has the power to modify them. We call these devices
+“tyrants”, and the practice is called
+“tivoization” after the product where we first saw it.
+These executables are not free software even though their source code
+is free software. The criteria for open source do not recognize this
+issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source
code.</p>
+
+<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
+“Open Source”</h3>
+
+<p>The term “free software” is prone to 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 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 that people have
+suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that switching
+to it would be a good idea. (For instance, in some contexts the
+French and Spanish word “libre” works well, but people in India
+do not recognize it at all.) 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/osd">official
definition of
+“open source software”</a> (which is 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. Nonetheless, their definition
+agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
+
+<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
+software”—and the one most people seem to think it
+means—is “You can look at the source code.” 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 the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
+meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
+misunderstand the term. According to writer Neal Stephenson,
+“Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply,
+that anyone can get copies of its source code files.” 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:
+<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
+that page is no longer available. --> “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>
+
+<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">
+run an article that stretches the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
+user beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and
+give confidential feedback—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 “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 the term “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 its official definition. That makes for worse
+confusion.</p>
+
+<p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea
+that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to
+accompany another misunderstanding that “free software”
+means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken,
+since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the
+open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There
+are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software
+licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>The term “open source” has been further stretched by
+its application to other activities, such as government, education,
+and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where
+criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only
+thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite
+people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only
+means “participatory” or “transparent”, or
+less than that. At worst, it
+has <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html">
+become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</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, 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 that
+is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users'
+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, “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 I value my freedom more. So I reject your program.
+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 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 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 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 implement them in open source programs.</p>
+
+<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 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 “open source
+DRM” 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. The software would then
+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 of those who split off the open source
+camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
+“free software” 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 issues.</p>
+
+<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 “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 community, 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 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 “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, especially its distributors, say little about
+freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to
+business.” 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 flaw.</p>
+
+<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 through “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>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><h3>“FLOSS” and
“FOSS”</h3>
+
+<p> The terms “FLOSS” and “FOSS” are used to
+be <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"> neutral between free
+software and open source</a>. If neutrality is your goal,
+“FLOSS” is the better of the two, since it really is
+neutral. But if you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral
+term isn't the way. Standing up for freedom entails showing people
+your support for freedom.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community,
+we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue
+of freedom to their 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>Notes</h4>
+
+<!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
+<p>
+Joe Barr's article,
+<a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">“Live and
+let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
+-->
+<p>
+Lakhani and Wolf's <a
+href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/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 is 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><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. There are
also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and
other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/01/19 19:30:27 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.hr....,
GNUN <=