[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: |
Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:56:01 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Richard M. Stallman <rms> 22/02/02 20:56:01
Modified files:
philosophy : open-source-misses-the-point.html
Log message:
(Practical Differences between...): Rewrite the section to
state its points more clearly.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.107&r2=1.108
Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html,v
retrieving revision 1.107
retrieving revision 1.108
diff -u -b -r1.107 -r1.108
--- open-source-misses-the-point.html 2 Feb 2022 13:27:59 -0000 1.107
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.html 3 Feb 2022 01:56:01 -0000 1.108
@@ -119,37 +119,45 @@
<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than
those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free
software source code 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. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree
+source software is free software, but there are exceptions.</p>
+
+<p>First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do
+not qualify as free licenses. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree
because its license does not allow making a modified version and using
it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.</p>
-<p>Second, when a free program's source code carries a weak license,
-one without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree
-conditions. If these executables correspond exactly to the released
-sources, they qualify as open source but not as free software.
-However, in that case users can compile the source code to make and
-distribute free executables.</p>
-
-<p>Finally, and most important in practice, many products containing
-computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users
-from installing different executables; only one privileged company can
-make executables that can run in the device or can access its full
-capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants,” and the
-practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo)
-where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free
-source code, and nominally carries a free license, the users cannot
-run modified versions of it, so the executable is de-facto nonfree.</p>
+<p>Second, the criteria for open source are concerned solely with the
+licensing of the source code. However, people often describe an
+executable as “open source,” because its source code is
+available that way. That causes confusion in paradoxical situations
+where the source code is open source (and free) but the executable
+itself is nonfree.</p>
+
+<p>The trivial case of this paradox is when a program's source code
+carries a weak free license, one without copyleft, but its executables
+carry additional nonfree conditions. Supposing the executables
+correspond exactly to the released sources—which may or may not
+be so—users can compile the source code to make and distribute
+free executables. That's why this case is trivial; it is no grave
+problem.</p>
+
+<p>The nontrivial case is harmful and important. Many products
+containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to
+block users from effectively using different executables; only one
+privileged company can make executables that can run in the device and
+use its full capabilities. We call these devices
+“tyrants,” and the practice is called
+“tivoization” after the product (Tivo) where we first saw
+it. Even if the executable is made from free source code, and
+nominally carries a free license, the users cannot usefully run
+modified versions of it, so the executable is de-facto nonfree.</p>
<p>Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of
-Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2. We
-designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this practice.</p>
-
-<p>The criteria for open source are concerned solely with the
-licensing of the source code. Thus, these nonfree executables, when
-made from source code such as Linux that is open source and free, are
-open source but not free.</p>
+Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2. (We
+designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this practice; too bad Linux
+did not adopt it.) These executables, made from source code that is
+open source and free, are generally spoken of as “open
+source,” but they are <em>not</em> free software.</p>
<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
“Open Source”</h3>
@@ -515,7 +523,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2022/02/02 13:27:59 $
+$Date: 2022/02/03 01:56:01 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>