1 |
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> |
2 |
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.98 --> |
3 |
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> |
4 |
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs free-open" --> |
5 |
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> |
6 |
<title>Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source” |
7 |
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> |
8 |
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-for-freedom.translist" --> |
9 |
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> |
10 |
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> |
11 |
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> |
12 |
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> |
13 |
<div class="article reduced-width"> |
14 |
<h2>Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”</h2> |
15 |
|
16 |
<div class="infobox" style="font-style: italic"> |
17 |
<p>This article has been superseded by a major rewrite, |
18 |
<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">“Open |
19 |
Source” misses the point of Free Software</a>, which is much |
20 |
better. We keep this version for historical reasons.</p> |
21 |
</div> |
22 |
<hr class="thin" /> |
23 |
|
24 |
<p> |
25 |
While free software by any other name would give you the same |
26 |
freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words |
27 |
<em>convey different ideas</em>.</p> |
28 |
|
29 |
<p> |
30 |
In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using |
31 |
the term <a href="https://opensource.org">“open source |
32 |
software”</a> instead of <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">“free |
33 |
software”</a> to describe what they do. The term “open source” |
34 |
quickly became associated with a different approach, a different |
35 |
philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which |
36 |
licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open |
37 |
Source movement are today <a href="#relationship"> separate |
38 |
movements</a> with different views and goals, although we can and do |
39 |
work together on some practical projects.</p> |
40 |
|
41 |
<p> |
42 |
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their |
43 |
values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source |
44 |
movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a |
45 |
practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, “Open |
46 |
source is a development methodology; free software is a social |
47 |
movement.” For the Open Source movement, nonfree software is a |
48 |
suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, nonfree |
49 |
software is a social problem and free software is the solution.</p> |
50 |
|
51 |
<h3 id="relationship">Relationship between the Free Software |
52 |
movement and Open Source movement</h3> |
53 |
|
54 |
<p> |
55 |
The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two |
56 |
political camps within the free software community.</p> |
57 |
|
58 |
<p> |
59 |
Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for factionalism: |
60 |
organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, |
61 |
and then treated each other as enemies. Or at least, such is the |
62 |
image people have of them, whether or not it was true.</p> |
63 |
|
64 |
<p> |
65 |
The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open |
66 |
Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. We disagree on |
67 |
the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical |
68 |
recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific |
69 |
projects. We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. |
70 |
The enemy is |
71 |
<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"> proprietary |
72 |
software</a>.</p> |
73 |
|
74 |
<p> |
75 |
We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be |
76 |
lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our |
77 |
community, but we created this community, and we want people to know |
78 |
this. We want people to associate our achievements with our values |
79 |
and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not |
80 |
obscured behind a group with different views. To prevent people from |
81 |
thinking we are part of them, we take pains to avoid using the word |
82 |
“open” to describe free software, or its contrary, |
83 |
“closed,” in talking about nonfree software.</p> |
84 |
|
85 |
<p> |
86 |
So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the |
87 |
work we have done, and the software we have developed—such as the |
88 |
<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating system.</p> |
89 |
|
90 |
<h3 id="comparison">Comparing the two terms</h3> |
91 |
|
92 |
<p> |
93 |
This rest of this article compares the two terms “free software” and |
94 |
“open source.” It shows why the term “open source” does not solve |
95 |
any problems, and in fact creates some.</p> |
96 |
|
97 |
<h3 id="ambiguity">Ambiguity</h3> |
98 |
|
99 |
<p> |
100 |
The term “free software” has an ambiguity problem: an unintended |
101 |
meaning, “Software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just |
102 |
as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives the user |
103 |
certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing a |
104 |
<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"> more precise definition of free |
105 |
software</a>, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely |
106 |
eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, |
107 |
if it didn't have other problems.</p> |
108 |
|
109 |
<p> |
110 |
Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their |
111 |
own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, |
112 |
but none is so clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good |
113 |
idea. Every proposed replacement for “free software” has a similar |
114 |
kind of semantic problem, or worse—and this includes “open source |
115 |
software.”</p> |
116 |
|
117 |
<p> |
118 |
The official definition of “open source software,” as published |
119 |
by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition |
120 |
of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, |
121 |
and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably |
122 |
restrictive of the users. |
123 |
|
124 |
However, |
125 |
the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” |
126 |
is “You can look at |
127 |
the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free |
128 |
software; it includes free software, but also |
129 |
some <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"> |
130 |
proprietary</a> programs, including Xv, and Qt under its original license |
131 |
(before the QPL).</p> |
132 |
|
133 |
<p> |
134 |
That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its |
135 |
advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand |
136 |
what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal |
137 |
Stephenson defined “open source”:</p> |
138 |
|
139 |
<blockquote><p> |
140 |
Linux is “open source” software |
141 |
meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files. |
142 |
</p></blockquote> |
143 |
|
144 |
<p> |
145 |
I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the |
146 |
“official” definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of |
147 |
the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state |
148 |
of Kansas published a similar definition: |
149 |
<!-- The <a href="http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf"> state of |
150 |
Kansas</a> published a similar definition: --></p> |
151 |
|
152 |
<blockquote><p> |
153 |
Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the |
154 |
source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing |
155 |
agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code. |
156 |
</p></blockquote> |
157 |
|
158 |
<p> |
159 |
Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by |
160 |
publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for |
161 |
“free software.”</p> |
162 |
|
163 |
<p> |
164 |
But the explanation for “free software” is simple—a |
165 |
person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free |
166 |
beer” will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct |
167 |
way to explain the official meaning of “open source” and |
168 |
show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.</p> |
169 |
|
170 |
<h3 id="fear">Fear of Freedom</h3> |
171 |
|
172 |
<p> |
173 |
The main argument for the term “open source software” is |
174 |
that “free software” makes some people uneasy. That's |
175 |
true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about |
176 |
responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think |
177 |
about things they might rather ignore. This can trigger discomfort, |
178 |
and some people may reject the idea for that. It does not follow that |
179 |
society would be better off if we stop talking about these things.</p> |
180 |
|
181 |
<p> |
182 |
Years ago, free software developers noticed this discomfort reaction, |
183 |
and some started exploring an approach for avoiding it. They figured |
184 |
that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about |
185 |
the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might |
186 |
be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain |
187 |
users, especially business. The term “open source” is |
188 |
offered as a way of doing more of this—a way to be “more |
189 |
acceptable to business.” The views and values of the Open Source |
190 |
movement stem from this decision.</p> |
191 |
|
192 |
<p> |
193 |
This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. Today many |
194 |
people are switching to free software for purely practical reasons. |
195 |
That is good, as far as it goes, but that isn't all we need to do! |
196 |
Attracting users to free software is not the whole job, just the first |
197 |
step.</p> |
198 |
|
199 |
<p> |
200 |
Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to |
201 |
proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless |
202 |
companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? |
203 |
Only if they have learned to <em>value the freedom</em> free software |
204 |
gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to spread this |
205 |
idea—and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A |
206 |
certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business |
207 |
can be useful for the community, but we must have plenty of freedom |
208 |
talk too.</p> |
209 |
|
210 |
<p> |
211 |
At present, we have plenty of “keep quiet,” but not enough |
212 |
freedom talk. Most people involved with free software say little |
213 |
about freedom—usually because they seek to be “more |
214 |
acceptable to business.” Software distributors especially show |
215 |
this pattern. Some |
216 |
<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating system |
217 |
distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and |
218 |
they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step |
219 |
backwards from freedom.</p> |
220 |
|
221 |
<p> |
222 |
We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, |
223 |
failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as |
224 |
they enter it. This is why nonfree software (which Qt was when it |
225 |
first became popular), and partially nonfree operating system |
226 |
distributions, find such fertile ground. To stop using the word |
227 |
“free” now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about |
228 |
freedom.</p> |
229 |
|
230 |
<p> |
231 |
If those using the term “open source” draw more users into our |
232 |
community, that is a contribution, but the rest of us will have to |
233 |
work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those users' |
234 |
attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives you |
235 |
freedom!”—more and louder than ever before.</p> |
236 |
|
237 |
<h3 id="newinfeb">Would a Trademark Help?</h3> |
238 |
|
239 |
<p> |
240 |
The advocates of “open source software” tried to make it a |
241 |
trademark, saying this would enable them to prevent misuse. This |
242 |
initiative was later dropped, the term being too descriptive to |
243 |
qualify as a trademark; thus, the legal status of “open source” is |
244 |
the same as that of “free software”: there is no <em>legal</em> |
245 |
constraint on using it. I have heard reports of a number of |
246 |
companies' calling software packages “open source” even though they |
247 |
did not fit the official definition; I have observed some instances |
248 |
myself.</p> |
249 |
|
250 |
<p> |
251 |
But would it have made a big difference to use a term that is a |
252 |
trademark? Not necessarily.</p> |
253 |
|
254 |
<p> |
255 |
Companies also made announcements that give the impression that a |
256 |
program is “open source software” without explicitly saying so. For |
257 |
example, one IBM announcement, about a program that did not fit the |
258 |
official definition, said this:</p> |
259 |
|
260 |
<blockquote><p> |
261 |
As is common in the open source community, users of the … |
262 |
technology will also be able to collaborate with IBM… |
263 |
</p></blockquote> |
264 |
|
265 |
<p> |
266 |
This did not actually say that the program <em>was</em> “open |
267 |
source,” but many readers did not notice that detail. (I should note |
268 |
that IBM was sincerely trying to make this program free software, and |
269 |
later adopted a new license which does make it free software and |
270 |
“open source”; but when that announcement was made, the program did |
271 |
not qualify as either one.)</p> |
272 |
|
273 |
<p> |
274 |
And here is how Cygnus Solutions, which was formed to be a free |
275 |
software company and subsequently branched out (so to speak) into |
276 |
proprietary software, advertised some proprietary software products:</p> |
277 |
|
278 |
<blockquote><p> |
279 |
Cygnus Solutions is a leader in the open source market and has just |
280 |
launched two products into the [GNU/]Linux marketplace. |
281 |
</p></blockquote> |
282 |
|
283 |
<p> |
284 |
Unlike IBM, Cygnus was not trying to make these packages free |
285 |
software, and the packages did not come close to qualifying. But |
286 |
Cygnus didn't actually say that these are “open source software,” |
287 |
they just made use of the term to give careless readers that |
288 |
impression.</p> |
289 |
|
290 |
<p> |
291 |
These observations suggest that a trademark would not have truly |
292 |
prevented the confusion that comes with the term “open source.”</p> |
293 |
|
294 |
<h3 id="newinnovember">Misunderstandings(?) of “Open Source”</h3> |
295 |
|
296 |
<p> |
297 |
The Open Source Definition is clear enough, and it is quite clear that |
298 |
the typical nonfree program does not qualify. So you would think |
299 |
that “Open Source company” would mean one whose products are free |
300 |
software (or close to it), right? Alas, many companies are trying to |
301 |
give it a different meaning.</p> |
302 |
|
303 |
<p> |
304 |
At the “Open Source Developers Day” meeting in August 1998, several |
305 |
of the commercial developers invited said they intend to make only a |
306 |
part of their work free software (or “open source”). The focus of |
307 |
their business is on developing proprietary add-ons (software or |
308 |
<a href="/philosophy/free-doc.html">manuals</a>) to sell to the users of |
309 |
this free software. They ask us to regard this as legitimate, as part |
310 |
of our community, because some of the money is donated to free |
311 |
software development.</p> |
312 |
|
313 |
<p> |
314 |
In effect, these companies seek to gain the favorable cachet of |
315 |
“open source” for their proprietary software |
316 |
products—even though those are not “open source |
317 |
software”—because they have some relationship to free |
318 |
software or because the same company also maintains some free |
319 |
software. (One company founder said quite explicitly that they would |
320 |
put, into the free package they support, as little of their work as |
321 |
the community would stand for.)</p> |
322 |
|
323 |
<p> |
324 |
Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software |
325 |
development. Some of these companies primarily developed nonfree |
326 |
software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore |
327 |
their nonfree products, and work with them on free software projects. |
328 |
Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software |
329 |
contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did.</p> |
330 |
|
331 |
<p> |
332 |
We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't let |
333 |
us. These companies actively invite the public to lump all their |
334 |
activities together; they want us to regard their nonfree software as |
335 |
favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not |
336 |
one. They present themselves as “open source companies,” hoping |
337 |
that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be |
338 |
fuzzy-minded in applying it.</p> |
339 |
|
340 |
<p> |
341 |
This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done |
342 |
using the term “free software.” But companies do not seem to use |
343 |
the term “free software” that way; perhaps its association with |
344 |
idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term “open source” opened |
345 |
the door for this.</p> |
346 |
|
347 |
<p> |
348 |
At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often |
349 |
referred to |
350 |
as “<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux</a>,” the |
351 |
featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. |
352 |
He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to |
353 |
“support” that system. Unfortunately, their form of |
354 |
“support” consists of releasing nonfree software that |
355 |
works with the system—in other words, using our community as a |
356 |
market but not contributing to it.</p> |
357 |
|
358 |
<p> |
359 |
He said, “There is no way we will make our product open source, |
360 |
but perhaps we will make it ‘internal’ open source. If we |
361 |
allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, |
362 |
they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better |
363 |
product and better service.” (This is not an exact quote, as I |
364 |
did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)</p> |
365 |
|
366 |
<p> |
367 |
People in the audience afterward told me, “He just doesn't get the |
368 |
point.” But is that so? Which point did he not get?</p> |
369 |
|
370 |
<p> |
371 |
He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement |
372 |
does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people |
373 |
to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and |
374 |
better development. The executive grasped that point completely; |
375 |
unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was |
376 |
considering implementing it partially, within the company.</p> |
377 |
|
378 |
<p> |
379 |
The point that he missed is the point that “open source” was |
380 |
designed not to raise: the point that users <em>deserve</em> |
381 |
freedom.</p> |
382 |
|
383 |
<p> |
384 |
Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job—it needs your help. |
385 |
That's why we stick to the term “free software” in the GNU |
386 |
Project, so we can help do that job. If you feel that freedom and |
387 |
community are important for their own sake—not just for the |
388 |
convenience they bring—please join us in using the term |
389 |
“free software.”</p> |
390 |
<div class="column-limit"></div> |
391 |
|
392 |
<h3 class="footnote">Notes</h3> |
393 |
<ul> |
394 |
<li> |
395 |
Joe Barr wrote an article called |
396 |
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20010618050431/itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/pfindex.html"> |
397 |
Live and let license</a> that gives his perspective on this issue.</li> |
398 |
|
399 |
<li> |
400 |
Lakhani and Wolf's |
401 |
<a href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">paper on the |
402 |
motivation of free software developers</a> says that a considerable |
403 |
fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This |
404 |
was despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge, |
405 |
a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.</li> |
406 |
</ul> |
407 |
|
408 |
<hr class="no-display" /> |
409 |
<div class="edu-note c"><p id="fsfs">This essay is published in |
410 |
<a href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free |
411 |
Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard |
412 |
M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div> |
413 |
</div> |
414 |
|
415 |
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> |
416 |
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> |
417 |
<div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> |
418 |
<div class="unprintable"> |
419 |
|
420 |
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a |
421 |
href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. There are also <a |
422 |
href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and other |
423 |
corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a |
424 |
href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> |
425 |
|
426 |
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, |
427 |
replace it with the translation of these two: |
428 |
|
429 |
We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality |
430 |
translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. |
431 |
Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard |
432 |
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> |
433 |
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> |
434 |
|
435 |
<p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of |
436 |
our web pages, see <a |
437 |
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations |
438 |
README</a>. --> |
439 |
Please see the <a |
440 |
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for |
441 |
information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p> |
442 |
</div> |
443 |
|
444 |
<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to |
445 |
files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should |
446 |
be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this |
447 |
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. |
448 |
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the |
449 |
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the |
450 |
document was modified, or published. |
451 |
|
452 |
If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. |
453 |
Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying |
454 |
years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable |
455 |
year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including |
456 |
being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). |
457 |
|
458 |
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers |
459 |
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> |
460 |
|
461 |
<p>Copyright © 1998-2003, 2007, 2010, 2023, 2024 Free Software Foundation, |
462 |
Inc.</p> |
463 |
|
464 |
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" |
465 |
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative |
466 |
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> |
467 |
|
468 |
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> |
469 |
|
470 |
<p class="unprintable">Updated: |
471 |
<!-- timestamp start --> |
472 |
$Date: 2023/12/31 13:39:45 $ |
473 |
<!-- timestamp end --> |
474 |
</p> |
475 |
</div> |
476 |
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> |
477 |
</body> |
478 |
</html> |