Must confess, I get a bit irritated when people try to explain "open source", but then very carefully steer away from "free software" in the explanation. It is like trying to explain what makes water flow, but trying very hard to avoid using "fluid" or its cognates.
My irritation aside, though, I can't decide whether the author is passively ignorant of the rest of the iceberg, or actively chooses to ignore it.
Its also noteworthy that the definition of "Open Source" is not something that any organization or entity has ownership over. OSI wants the definition to mean specific things. The FSF wants it to mean similar, yet different things (or that they never wanted "open source" to pollute the vernacular at all, and continue to use the "Free" software terminology.)
But the definition itself is fluid, contextual, and subject to change over time.
Yeah I think the FSF sees significant differences between Free Software and Open Source, in terms of the essential liberties that are not present in Open Source (different things missing in different understandings, but the FSF focuses on the fact that they are missing).
Although I’m no fanatical Stallmanite (Stallmanist? :), I do see the categorical distinctions clear as day; can’t understand why Open Source people play the willful ignorance card.
Free Software is good for people primarily, while Open Source is good for corporations primarily.
If people ignore FS and promote OS, what does that tell us about their intentions?
"Open source" was a service mark of OSI, an attempt to defend the term against people who use it inconsistently with its definition. I don't know if this is still the case, but OSI still advocates for use of "open source" consistent with the definition below.
Both open source and free software are defined as software that allows you to:
* use the software for any purpose
* examine the source
* distribute the software under the same license terms as you received it
* modify the software in any way
* distribute the software in modified form under the same license terms as you received the original
Stallman's quibble with "open source" is that open source messaging focuses on the business benefits of this kind of software rather than the inherent virtues of free software (and the inherent vices of non-free software). Note also that even to Stallman and the FSF, even BSD- or MIT-licensed works are "free software"; software licenses that forbid redistribution under a different license are called copyleft licenses under the FSF.
Article author here, I admit this is fairly specifically targeted at the term "Open Source" as that's specifically the term I believe to see misapplied most often. I wanted to write an article that I could share to provide some context when raising issues regarding licensing. While I could have gone a lot deeper into also describing "free software" and the history of the terms, I wanted something rather direct that won't serve more confusion (Since often this could be the first introduction to the meanings of "Open Source" and "free software").
Maybe I could add a "Further Reading" section at the end though with links to such topics.
Yes, "free software" is a competing term used by Free Software Foundation, but they don't certify licenses in the same way. They have a page commenting on different licenses [1] but it's less useful than what OSI does, in terms of defining a term clearly and attempting to be neutral about what licenses it includes.
Perhaps this is because their goal is to promote the GNU licenses, not to be objective about it.
OSI was created in part in reaction to ambiguity and confusion around "free software."
I'll be honest, the use of 'free' in your comment is vague on the same level of 'open source', ie. do you mean "free (freedom) software" or "free (as in beer) software".
For me F/LOSS is a perfect example of how anarchist philosophy let’s perfect be the enemy of good; practical solutions become as bad as no solution.
Most end users are just happy there’s a ton of free, quality code to run and study. Admittedly that’s only the case because of the FSF, but I think they should just accept that “open source” is a perfectly good term to describe software that is free and you can download the source.
Everything else is licensing nuances e.g, politics
The idea of Free Software, at its most extreme, exists as a useful endpoint of an "Overton Window" for software. Which is to say, all software benefits from its existence even if they don't e.g. sign on to the GPL. You're forced to consider it as a possibility.
Without it, we'd probably think of "Open Source" as the most "open" software can be -- which, as OP proves, is quite wrong and nebulous.
No I have it right, because most people stop listening when you talk about more abstract “freedom” when what they’ve got is literally (the good) and abstractly (the implementation) free. I get it’s an Overton window and admitted they moved it. However they’ve (FSF) failed to adapt to the current times and branch from there.
I think you're missing the possibility (and unfortunately, I would say the inevitability) of backsliding. I don't think we need anything adapting as near as much as we need people to "hold the line" or "stop loss."
For me, the perfect concrete case of this was here reading about youtube-dl being removed for Github. It became clear to me that a not-insignificant number of professionals in this space absolutely equated "deleted from Github" as "literally gone forever such that no one could have it again."
People will forget about the idea of free software and taking a copy of the code home with you as an important idea to be preserved, unless the FSF et al remain.
The minds behind the FSF were very much influenced by anarchist philosophy. The implementation uses the state because anarchism isn’t practical. As I said, they’ve been convinced the movement has failed since it’s inception and that we live in the dystopia they envisioned.
Despite their mission having been an overwhelming success.
Free software is associated with the belief that unfree software is unethical. If someone is making an explanation, but is not trying to tell everyone who makes propitiatory software is evil they should not mention free software.
I will try -- free is not the right word in English, it has ambiguity and also, unproductive aspects of meaning.
Richard Stallman and GPL discussions certainly do mention ethics as part of the considerations. I agree that no person is completely disjoint from ethical considerations, with intelligence. But as this thread explores, there are multiple points of view, unclear and untested aspects legally within multiple legal jurisdictions.
But you make a large leap when you say "they should not mention" .. It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one, it is more in common with persuasive, political speech than logic there.
As noted by others, a useful simplification is to focus on one particular LICENSE at a time. Is this license ... x y z. As Google did long ago and as Github started to do and as the OSI does and as FSF does... like that.. not debate on the entire concept, but instead focus on the implementation, as software does.
free is not the right word in English, it has ambiguity and also, unproductive aspects of meaning.
I was not talking about free software as in the adjective free applied to software. But free software as in the term from the free software movement where its members call code that follows their ideals of what is ethical free software.
It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one
The logical reason is that free software is less inclusive because it considers most SWE unethical for working on proprietary software. If the term open source works just as well and is more inclusive it should be used.
Comments
Must confess, I get a bit irritated when people try to explain "open source", but then very carefully steer away from "free software" in the explanation. It is like trying to explain what makes water flow, but trying very hard to avoid using "fluid" or its cognates.
My irritation aside, though, I can't decide whether the author is passively ignorant of the rest of the iceberg, or actively chooses to ignore it.
Its also noteworthy that the definition of "Open Source" is not something that any organization or entity has ownership over. OSI wants the definition to mean specific things. The FSF wants it to mean similar, yet different things (or that they never wanted "open source" to pollute the vernacular at all, and continue to use the "Free" software terminology.)
But the definition itself is fluid, contextual, and subject to change over time.
Yeah I think the FSF sees significant differences between Free Software and Open Source, in terms of the essential liberties that are not present in Open Source (different things missing in different understandings, but the FSF focuses on the fact that they are missing).
Although I’m no fanatical Stallmanite (Stallmanist? :), I do see the categorical distinctions clear as day; can’t understand why Open Source people play the willful ignorance card.
Free Software is good for people primarily, while Open Source is good for corporations primarily.
If people ignore FS and promote OS, what does that tell us about their intentions?
"Open source" was a service mark of OSI, an attempt to defend the term against people who use it inconsistently with its definition. I don't know if this is still the case, but OSI still advocates for use of "open source" consistent with the definition below.
Both open source and free software are defined as software that allows you to:
* use the software for any purpose
* examine the source
* distribute the software under the same license terms as you received it
* modify the software in any way
* distribute the software in modified form under the same license terms as you received the original
Stallman's quibble with "open source" is that open source messaging focuses on the business benefits of this kind of software rather than the inherent virtues of free software (and the inherent vices of non-free software). Note also that even to Stallman and the FSF, even BSD- or MIT-licensed works are "free software"; software licenses that forbid redistribution under a different license are called copyleft licenses under the FSF.
Article author here, I admit this is fairly specifically targeted at the term "Open Source" as that's specifically the term I believe to see misapplied most often. I wanted to write an article that I could share to provide some context when raising issues regarding licensing. While I could have gone a lot deeper into also describing "free software" and the history of the terms, I wanted something rather direct that won't serve more confusion (Since often this could be the first introduction to the meanings of "Open Source" and "free software").
Maybe I could add a "Further Reading" section at the end though with links to such topics.
Yes, "free software" is a competing term used by Free Software Foundation, but they don't certify licenses in the same way. They have a page commenting on different licenses [1] but it's less useful than what OSI does, in terms of defining a term clearly and attempting to be neutral about what licenses it includes.
Perhaps this is because their goal is to promote the GNU licenses, not to be objective about it.
OSI was created in part in reaction to ambiguity and confusion around "free software."
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
I'll be honest, the use of 'free' in your comment is vague on the same level of 'open source', ie. do you mean "free (freedom) software" or "free (as in beer) software".
For me F/LOSS is a perfect example of how anarchist philosophy let’s perfect be the enemy of good; practical solutions become as bad as no solution.
Most end users are just happy there’s a ton of free, quality code to run and study. Admittedly that’s only the case because of the FSF, but I think they should just accept that “open source” is a perfectly good term to describe software that is free and you can download the source.
Everything else is licensing nuances e.g, politics
I think you have it exactly wrong.
The idea of Free Software, at its most extreme, exists as a useful endpoint of an "Overton Window" for software. Which is to say, all software benefits from its existence even if they don't e.g. sign on to the GPL. You're forced to consider it as a possibility.
Without it, we'd probably think of "Open Source" as the most "open" software can be -- which, as OP proves, is quite wrong and nebulous.
No I have it right, because most people stop listening when you talk about more abstract “freedom” when what they’ve got is literally (the good) and abstractly (the implementation) free. I get it’s an Overton window and admitted they moved it. However they’ve (FSF) failed to adapt to the current times and branch from there.
I think you're missing the possibility (and unfortunately, I would say the inevitability) of backsliding. I don't think we need anything adapting as near as much as we need people to "hold the line" or "stop loss."
For me, the perfect concrete case of this was here reading about youtube-dl being removed for Github. It became clear to me that a not-insignificant number of professionals in this space absolutely equated "deleted from Github" as "literally gone forever such that no one could have it again."
People will forget about the idea of free software and taking a copy of the code home with you as an important idea to be preserved, unless the FSF et al remain.
FLOSS is not an anarchist philosophy, since it relies on the state for enforcement.
The minds behind the FSF were very much influenced by anarchist philosophy. The implementation uses the state because anarchism isn’t practical. As I said, they’ve been convinced the movement has failed since it’s inception and that we live in the dystopia they envisioned.
Despite their mission having been an overwhelming success.
Free software is associated with the belief that unfree software is unethical. If someone is making an explanation, but is not trying to tell everyone who makes propitiatory software is evil they should not mention free software.
I will try -- free is not the right word in English, it has ambiguity and also, unproductive aspects of meaning.
Richard Stallman and GPL discussions certainly do mention ethics as part of the considerations. I agree that no person is completely disjoint from ethical considerations, with intelligence. But as this thread explores, there are multiple points of view, unclear and untested aspects legally within multiple legal jurisdictions.
But you make a large leap when you say "they should not mention" .. It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one, it is more in common with persuasive, political speech than logic there.
As noted by others, a useful simplification is to focus on one particular LICENSE at a time. Is this license ... x y z. As Google did long ago and as Github started to do and as the OSI does and as FSF does... like that.. not debate on the entire concept, but instead focus on the implementation, as software does.
I was not talking about free software as in the adjective free applied to software. But free software as in the term from the free software movement where its members call code that follows their ideals of what is ethical free software.
The logical reason is that free software is less inclusive because it considers most SWE unethical for working on proprietary software. If the term open source works just as well and is more inclusive it should be used.