[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, 22 Dec 2021 19:13:48 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Richard M. Stallman <rms> 21/12/22 19:13:48
Modified files:
philosophy : open-source-misses-the-point.html
Log message:
Remove some doublequotes,
Improve explanation of the usual misunderstanding of "open source".
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.102&r2=1.103
Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html,v
retrieving revision 1.102
retrieving revision 1.103
diff -u -b -r1.102 -r1.103
--- open-source-misses-the-point.html 2 Oct 2021 08:46:28 -0000 1.102
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.html 23 Dec 2021 00:13:48 -0000 1.103
@@ -10,11 +10,12 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
-<div class="article reduced-width">
+<div class="reduced-width">
<h2>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software</h2>
<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
+<div class="article">
<div class="important"><p>
The terms “free software” and “open
source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However,
@@ -46,7 +47,7 @@
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
+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'
@@ -111,7 +112,7 @@
want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not
“open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed
-source.” To make this clear, we avoid using those terms.
+source”. To make this clear, we avoid using those terms.
</p>
<h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source</h3>
@@ -121,14 +122,14 @@
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
+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 program's source code carries a weak license, one
without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree
conditions. <a href="https://code.visualstudio.com/License/";>Microsoft
-does this with Visual Studio Code</a>, for example.</p>
+does this with Visual Studio Code,</a> for example.</p>
<p>If these executables fully correspond to the released sources, they
qualify as open source but not as free software. However, in that
@@ -139,7 +140,7 @@
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
+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
@@ -177,18 +178,25 @@
this includes “open source software.”</p>
<p>The <a href="https://opensource.org/osd";>official definition of
-“open source software”</a> (which is published by the Open
+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>
+software” is “You can look at the source code.”
+Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand “open source
+software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is
+“source available.”) 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>Why do people misunderstand it that way? Because that is the
+natural meaning of the words “open source.” But the
+concept for which the open source advocates sought another meaning was
+that of free software.</p>
<p>Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
@@ -245,7 +253,7 @@
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
+means “participatory” or “transparent”, or
less than that. At worst, it
has <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html";>
become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</p>
@@ -334,7 +342,7 @@
<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
+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
@@ -404,7 +412,7 @@
<h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3>
<p>“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare.
-“Free software” and “open source” are
+Free software and open source are
different ideas but, in most people's way of looking at software, they
compete for the same conceptual slot. When people become habituated
to saying and thinking “open source,” that is an obstacle
@@ -434,6 +442,7 @@
than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than
“open source,” you help our cause.</p>
<div class="column-limit"></div>
+</div>
<h3 class="footnote">Note</h3>
@@ -484,23 +493,6 @@
of this article.</p>
</div>
-<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
- files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
- be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
- without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
- document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
- document was modified, or published.
-
- If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
- Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
- years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
- year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
- being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
-
- There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
- Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-
<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, 2019-2021 Richard Stallman</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
@@ -511,7 +503,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2021/10/02 08:46:28 $
+$Date: 2021/12/23 00:13:48 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
- www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.html,
Richard M. Stallman <=