diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/open-source-misses-the-point.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/open-source-misses-the-point.md | 472 |
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/).\ |