first

1 files changed, 472 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/open-source-misses-the-point.md b/docs/open-source-misses-the-point.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d886cf8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/open-source-misses-the-point.md
@@ -0,0 +1,472 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software {#why-open-source-misses-the-point-of-freesoftware .chapter}
+====================================================
+
+When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users’
+essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and
+to redistribute copies with or without changes.[(1)](#FOOT1) This is a
+matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free
+beer.”
+
+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.
+
+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 GNU/Linux operating system.[(2)](#FOOT2) 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.
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2007, 2008,
+2010, 2012–2015 Richard Stallman\
+ {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2007. This
+version is part of @fsfsthreecite}
+
+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 GNU General Public
+License (GNU GPL) to release them under—a license designed specifically
+to protect freedom for all users of a program.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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. [(3)](#FOOT3)
+
+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.
+
+“Free software.” “Open source.” If it’s the same software (or nearly
+so[(4)](#FOOT4)), 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.”
+
+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.
+
+### Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source {#practical-differences-between-free-software-and-open-source .subheading}
+
+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. 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.
+
+Second, and more 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, the users cannot
+run modified versions of it, so the executable is nonfree.
+
+The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are
+concerned solely with the licensing of the source code. Thus, these
+unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux that
+is open source and free, are open source but not free. Many Android
+products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux.
+
+### Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open Source” {#common-misunderstandings-of-free-software-and-open-source .subheading}
+
+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.
+
+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.”
+
+The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by
+the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here[(5)](#FOOT5))
+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.
+
+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.
+
+Since that 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.”[(6)](#FOOT6) 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: “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.”[(7)](#FOOT7)
+
+The New York Times ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term
+to refer to user beta testing[(8)](#FOOT8)—letting a few users try an
+early version and give confidential feedback—which proprietary software
+developers have practiced for decades.
+
+The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment that
+are published without a patent.[(9)](#FOOT9) Patent-free equipment
+designs can be laudable contributions to society, but the term “source
+code” does not pertain to them.
+
+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.
+
+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
+many free software licenses aside from the GNU GPL.[(10)](#FOOT10)
+
+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 become a vacuous
+buzzword.[(11)](#FOOT11)
+
+### Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always {#different-values-can-lead-to-similar-conclusionsbut-notalways .subheading}
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive,
+but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I will get my
+work done some other way, and support a project to develop a free
+replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend
+it.
+
+### Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad {#powerful-reliable-software-can-be-bad .subheading}
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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 our campaign against it, at
+[DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org)) 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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+### Fear of Freedom {#fear-of-freedom .subheading}
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+### “FLOSS” and “FOSS” {#floss-and-foss .subheading}
+
+The terms “FLOSS” and “FOSS”[(12)](#FOOT12) are used to be neutral
+between free software and open source. 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.
+
+### Rivals for Mindshare {#rivals-for-mindshare .subheading}
+
+“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare. “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 to
+their grasping the free software movement’s philosophy and thinking
+about it. If they have already come to associate us and our software
+with the word “open,” we may need to shock them intellectually before
+they recognize that we stand for something *else.* Any activity that
+promotes the word “open” tends to extend the curtain that hides the
+ideas of the free software movement.
+
+Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work on an
+activity that calls itself “open.” Even if the activity is good in and
+of itself, each contribution you make does a little harm on the side.
+There are plenty of other good activities which call themselves “free”
+or “libre.” Each contribution to those projects does a little extra good
+on the side. With so many useful projects to choose from, why not choose
+one which does extra good?
+
+### Conclusion {#conclusion .subheading}
+
+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 cause.
+
+#### Note {#note .subsubheading}
+
+Karim R. Lakhani and Robert G. Wolf’s paper on the motivation of free
+software developers (“Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding
+Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects,” in
+Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, edited by J. Feller and
+others (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005),
+[http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/\
+lakhaniwolf.pdf](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/%3Cbr%3Elakhaniwolf.pdf))
+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.
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+### Footnotes
+
+### [(1)](#DOCF1)
+
+@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free
+software. @end raggedright
+
+### [(2)](#DOCF2)
+
+@raggedright See “Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and GNU})
+for more on the operating system. @end raggedright
+
+### [(3)](#DOCF3)
+
+@raggedright For a typical example, see, for instance, Jay Lyman’s
+article\
+ “Open Source Is Woven Into the Latest, Hottest Trends”\
+ (12 September 2013, [http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/\
+Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html](http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/%3Cbr%3EOpen-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html)).
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(4)](#DOCF4)
+
+@raggedright See “How Free Software and Open Source Relate as Categories
+of Programs,” at <http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html>.
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(5)](#DOCF5)
+
+@raggedright See <http://opensource.org/docs/osd> for the full
+definition. @end raggedright
+
+### [(6)](#DOCF6)
+
+@raggedright Neal Stephenson, In the Beginning...Was the Command Line
+(New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), p. 94. @end raggedright
+
+### [(7)](#DOCF7)
+
+@raggedright Kansas Statewide Technology Architecture, “Information
+Architecture,” version 8.0, 20.3.8, accessed 11 October 2001,
+[https://web.archive.org/web/\
+20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/%3Cbr%3E20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf).
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(8)](#DOCF8)
+
+@raggedright Mary Jane Irwin, “The Brave New World of Open-Source Game
+Design,” New York Times, online ed., 7 February 2009,
+[http://www.nytimes.com/external/\
+gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-\
+design-37415.html](http://www.nytimes.com/external/%3Cbr%3Egigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-%3Cbr%3Edesign-37415.html).
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(9)](#DOCF9)
+
+@raggedright Karl Mathiesen and Tess Riley, “Texas Teenager Creates \$20
+Water Purifier to Tackle Toxic E-Waste Pollution,” 27 August 2015,
+[http://theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-\
+toxic-e-waste-pollution](http://theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-%3Cbr%3Etoxic-e-waste-pollution).
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(10)](#DOCF10)
+
+@raggedright See “Various Licenses and Comments about Them,” at\
+ <http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>. @end raggedright
+
+### [(11)](#DOCF11)
+
+@raggedright Evgeny Morozov, “Open and Closed,” 16 March 2013,
+<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html>.
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(12)](#DOCF12)
+
+@raggedright See both @pageref{FLOSS} and the article “FLOSS and FOSS,”
+at <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html>, for more on this
+issue. @end raggedright
+
+</div>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\