GEEZE -o- PEETS Richard
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| PaulFerris Mar 24, 2005 10:55 AM EDT |
I thought Free Software was a subset of Open Source software -- or was I wrong? You mean, we're no longer able to call things that are Free Software "Open Source" -- I can understand the reverse being bad -- had the writer called something released under a non-Free Software license "Free Software" -- that I can understand. This I don't understand. It alienates everyone when a headline like that buzzes by. It alienates me when I read the critisism. You were on the original board of the OSI weren't you? I know there was a tiff in there somewhere when things fell apart -- I know some people got rather upset at the time. Please help me understand why this is necessary. Because I don't. --FeriCyde |
| peragrin Mar 24, 2005 11:02 AM EDT |
Because Stallman believes that Open source /= Free Software(or was that Freedom Software?) Stallman believes that Open Source is a marketing concept designed to limit the freedom one has with Free software to confuse the two terms. File this under the Linux, GNU/Linux debate , and let it slide. As I take Open Source , Source code that I can modify and create derivatives of. Remember Stallman is the Opposite of Gates. Both need to be listened to with a grain of salt. I thank Stallman for provide Freedom Software I thank Gates for forcing cheap fast hardware down our throats. |
| richo123 Mar 24, 2005 11:22 AM EDT |
I always enjoy Dick Stallman and his New York style attention seeking behaviour. Makes a very pleasant change from George Bush. |
| zjim Mar 24, 2005 11:43 AM EDT |
I'm not sure how Stallman thinks, but GNU software is a type of Open Source software, whether he likes it or not. I once was like you richo123, I thought Stallman's style was a bit refreshing, but now I wish he'd just get the stick out of he's butt and move on. When I think GNU software I think of it as a club, like if we know and like you then you can contribute to the project. (I have offered my background and services to several, with no response back.) On the other hand, the idea that any one can take any GNU or Open Source project and modify them and post them, start their own project or whatever, makes it a non-issue. Okay, that was a sidetrack. I can take Stallman with a grain of salt, but some times I think it'd be better if he watched his comments. Most of the time I think they do nothing more than confuse people who don't understand he's real position. |
| windowsrefund Mar 24, 2005 12:19 PM EDT |
Richard is 100% correct and we should be thanking him for not losing sight of the real goal. If you find yourself not quite "getting it", you should be reading his essays and studying the history of the GNU project (yes, it began a long time ago.. in a galaxy far, far, away....... long before the creation of the "open source" marketing campaign). Thank you RMS, windowsrefund |
| PaulFerris Mar 24, 2005 12:43 PM EDT |
winrefund: Listen, I, unlike you suppose, have read his essays. I also know that he was one of the founding fathers of the OSI (I thought that I was rather clear in that at the beginning). OSI (Open Source Initiative -- the people that coined the term). As to me being "thankful" -- I am. I've spoken about it on many occassions, actually. I usually try to include at least one reference to GNU/Linux when I mention the kernel -- I also use the words Free Software and Open Source software very, very carefully. I make sure to give the FSF their due, as a matter of fact. At one time I was asked to even run their news web site (My life at the time, simply didn't have time for it). As for what I originally said -- the meaning of my words doesn't change. I'm confused. I've heard Stallman himself explain this -- in public I've spoken to him quite a few times at trade shows and other Linux events. Take this text: The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. That is right from the Free Software foundation web site, located here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html It took me exactly 3 minutes to locate it -- because I'm dearly familiar with the material. Just because some idiots don't understand the difference between Free Software and Open Source software does not mean I do not. It is my understanding of the difference, as laid out by Stallman himself -- text from his web site, like the above -- that drove me to ask the question I started this thread with. Come down off your stump for a minute, resist the urge to talk down for just a moment, and think about what I'm saying -- you just might catch wind of something other than what you suppose is a buffoon belching in public. Sincerely, --FeriCyde |
| devnet Mar 24, 2005 12:50 PM EDT |
Think about it people...he's right. Free does not equal OPEN. I could close source a program and give it away. In this sense it is free software...but it isn't open source. He's just trying to draw that line because everyone else doesn't. Perhaps if most journalists weren't lazy and actually did their job of investigating what they are reporting on it would happen less. |
| AnonymousCoward Mar 24, 2005 2:03 PM EDT |
Peragrin: you say that Open Source is divided by Free Software? Hmm. Could be true. Paul: a more correct headline would have been "GCC not *just* Open Source" The important point which RMS is making (labouring) is that OSS grants you access, but Free goes beyond that in granting everyone else acess to your work as well. "Mere" OSS grants you - after a fashion - one-shot access, and Free grants you access forever. |
| PaulFerris Mar 24, 2005 6:14 PM EDT |
AC: yes, it would have been very much more correct, and possibly not as confusing. When I first spotted that I thought I was going to read a tirade by another pundit, who would point out that no software is "Free" in the sense that it always costs money to put it in place. A common Microsoft attack -- my boss even repeated it to me the other day like it would be some wild revelation to me -- little did he know that over 5 years ago we had long discussions about how to best present Free software to business -- hence the name "open source" -- in an attempt to get people to understand the merits of software that didn't compromise your rights instead of the merits of software that cost less. Free Software is about digital democracy, not digital Walmart. There's an enourmous difference. And back to my original point -- the headline lead me to believe it would be something like the above -- when I got there and started reading I was kind of in disbelief -- GCC is indeed in the Open Source fold -- and the Free Software fold -- it's in both categories by definintion, from what I see. What he's insensed about is the fact that Open Source software is not Free Software -- but I'd say that this is an example of a message that reads negative against GCC on initial headline inspection. From my years as a journalist I can tell you that people often simply don't read the content of an article -- they simply scan headlines, file markers and then use the sound bytes to stir the confusion later. For example, someone later might repeat the above article headline in a conversation: "Man, I really need to get the gcc working on this Linux box." other person says "I read recently that it's not open source anymore." or even "... Free anymore." I know a lot of you might be saying "Gee, Paul is making a mountain out of a mole hill here." Oh well. I don't think so. I'm talking simple marketing here... |
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2005 9:05 PM EDT |
Sigh. Why does anybody even pay attention to this loon any more? Yes, he did good stuff. Back in the last millenium, he was even relevant. Now he's just gaseous. By the way -- did you catch the reference to "When I originally developed..." I wonder if gcc still has any Stallman code (other than the credits page) within it. It have been massively re-worked and improved since the compiler suite Stallman brought forth. |
| incinerator Mar 25, 2005 12:15 AM EDT |
Stephen Shankland is clearly someone who does not understand what Free Software is. Just have a look at his article dealing with RedHat and CentOS. Now, a very big proportion of Open Source Software is also Free Software. Imho, a sophisticated journalist should be familiar with both terms and the concepts behind them. The GNU Project has a very good diagram on one of their webpages, see the following link and scroll down a wee bit. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html In case you don't want to read the text coming along with the picture, here are a direct links to the picture, as well: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/category.png http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/category.jpg |
| hkwint Mar 25, 2005 5:12 AM EDT |
The term Free Software is rather misleading in my opinion. If I get this Free/ Open thing right, that means BSD(NEWSTYLE)-licensed software isn't Free Software. Free Software doesn't give you the FREEDOM to change the license, and doesn't give you the FREEDOM to NOT to choose to make the source available. However, the BSD(NEWSTYLE) license does give you this freedom, so, as a 'logical' result, this software isn't FREE. With all respect to RMS, but that just doesn't feel right in my opinion. Free Software is OK, and I am convinced we owe much to it, I am grateful to RMS and Free Software, but, however, the name is a bit confusing and misleading. |
| sKIDROw Mar 25, 2005 5:47 AM EDT |
Free software and opensource is NOT! the same.
Opensource is a pragmatic way of looking at the mecanism of building our software.
Free software focuses on this, as a political and ethical question.
You are free to agree with whom you like, or perhaps neither or somewhat both.
But PLEASE understand, that there is a big differende between the two. Corrections: "I also know that he was one of the founding fathers of the OSI (I thought that I was rather clear in that at the beginning). OSI (Open Source Initiative -- the people that coined the term)." Couldn't be farther from the truth. Opensource Initiative was founded by people like Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens and the like. He founded FSF back ind the eighties, and they then founded the OSI later in the nineties. "The term Free Software is rather misleading in my opinion." Only in english speaking countries, because you don't have separate words for gratis and free as in liberated. It doesn't have problems, that doesn't cover the opensource term as well. "If I get this Free/ Open thing right, that means BSD(NEWSTYLE)-licensed software isn't Free Software." Thats not true. The free software definition only defines your freedoms to use, study modifi share verbatim and modifies. What the BSD like licenses doesn't have, is the GPLs copyleft feature, that stops people from using free code in non-free software. "Free Software doesn't give you the FREEDOM to change the license, and doesn't give you the FREEDOM to NOT to choose to make the source available." That is NOT FREEDOMS theese are POWERS. Big difference there. "However, the BSD(NEWSTYLE) license does give you this freedom, so, as a 'logical' result, this software isn't FREE." The software is not copylefted, but still free software. But not being copylefted just means, that the code is open to proprietary leeching. "With all respect to RMS, but that just doesn't feel right in my opinion." Because you have misunderstood a couple of things. "Free Software is OK, and I am convinced we owe much to it, I am grateful to RMS and Free Software, but, however, the name is a bit confusing and misleading." It is dificult to find a different name in english, that has the same meaning, and emphasis on FREEDOM. |
| zjim Mar 25, 2005 6:27 AM EDT |
I like what devnet said about the difference between free software and open source. This is the reason I think Stallman is a little off by calling it the "free software movement". Companies like Microsoft, that want to give away closed source software fool people into thinking that this isn't any different. What Stallman is really part of is the "free source software movement". This is where the real freedom is found in using GPL'd software. As far as Stallman goes, I'm glad he had the foresight to start such a movement, otherwise we'd all be stuck with a Microsoft world. Choices are great! |
| hkwint Mar 25, 2005 7:47 AM EDT |
sKIDROw: I attentive read the Free Software definition at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#FreeSoftware Let me quote: In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. You also say: That is NOT FREEDOMS theese are POWERS. Well, that's just to who you're speaking. I don't agree. And to the problem of the English language, I don't agree, you misunderstood me, let me give you a French example: Avec logiciel Libre, vous n'etes PAS LIBRE de change cette logiciel a logiciel non-libre. (With Free Software, you're NOT FREE to change it in NON-FREE software. Translation may suck, but it's just for the idea.) The definition I read doesn't mean Libre in my opinion, but hey, that's just me, and I don't mind if you disagree. But the term 'logiciel libre' / "vrije software" is misleading also in my opinion, as I stressed. Now I don't mind if you only call software which can't be used in closed source proprietary software free, but I feel, what you call leeching, is also a freedom, and the word 'libre / vrij' is also used correct if you give people the freedom to leech your software too. So, there's just a difference in our opinions, and I knew some people would like to flame me, but I just tried to explain why I don't think the word 'free/libre/vrij' matches the Free Software definition, which might be just an opinion. |
| hkwint Mar 25, 2005 8:53 AM EDT |
Oh, sorry, screwed up a bit. Should have read the "Non-copylefted free software" section, at the Categories of Free and Non-Free software, and moreover, I came to the conclusion some Freedoms take away other Freedoms. |
| PaulFerris Mar 25, 2005 10:03 AM EDT |
Okay, possibly my memory as to the OSI founding was wrong -- but here's a sound byte that explains that confusion a bit:
http://management.itmanagersjournal.com/management/05/02/15/... He did in fact, help coin the term, "Open Source". |
| sKIDROw Mar 26, 2005 2:17 PM EDT |
hkwint: "Let me quote: In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software." A practical requirement offcourse. "You also say: That is NOT FREEDOMS theese are POWERS. Well, that's just to who you're speaking. I don't agree." The ability to change and set license is a form of power that was my point. "And to the problem of the English language, I don't agree, you misunderstood me, let me give you a French example: Avec logiciel Libre, vous n'etes PAS LIBRE de change cette logiciel a logiciel non-libre. (With Free Software, you're NOT FREE to change it in NON-FREE software. Translation may suck, but it's just for the idea.) The definition I read doesn't mean Libre in my opinion, but hey, that's just me, and I don't mind if you disagree. But the term 'logiciel libre' / "vrije software" is misleading also in my opinion, as I stressed." I don't understand any french at all, so i can't argue about that. "Now I don't mind if you only call software which can't be used in closed source proprietary software free, but I feel, what you call leeching, is also a freedom, and the word 'libre / vrij' is also used correct if you give people the freedom to leech your software too." The free software definition does not require copyleft, some of us just think its a damn good idea to use copyleft anyway. I dont argue that noncopylefted software lige the BSDs is not free software, because that they certainly is. I personally don condone proprietary leeching of free code, and dont see why we should share with those that refuse to share with us. "So, there's just a difference in our opinions, and I knew some people would like to flame me, but I just tried to explain why I don't think the word 'free/libre/vrij' matches the Free Software definition, which might be just an opinion." I did not intend to flame you, just to argue with you. PaulFerris: I am not quite sure why that article mentions RMS in this way. He dont have any priorities about, marketing towards businesses. If he had had any part in OSI, he would most certainly not let the focus be so narrowly on practicality. But hell why not ask the guy, thats what i intend. |
| hkwint Mar 26, 2005 3:19 PM EDT |
sKIDROw: I understand your point, since I read the "Non-copylefted free software" section, at the Categories of Free and Non-Free software" I was just a bit confused. I learned open-source isn't Free-Software, but the BSD License is Free-Software, though it may not be open source, but on the other hand it may, and it may be turned in non-Free-Software, while Copylefted software may not, but Copylefted software can be used to create proprieraty software and so on... It 's all a bit confusing, but I actually think I learned something reading this thread! |
| Libervis Mar 26, 2005 8:14 PM EDT |
Oh my! It just amazes me how much confusion is there whenever RMS speaks out about the difference between Free Software and Open Source. It's worse then i tend to think and i'm very saddened and striked about it. Believe it or not, but of all of you who posted in this thread sKIDROw seems to have the most clear understanding of the issue. Now don't get me wrong, having a clear understanding does not means agreeing with either Free Software nor Open Source views. The only measure by which to identify a software as Free Software are those four freedoms presented in the Free Software definition here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html To quote it: " * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this." Now, GPL is the perfect Free Software license as it is designed specifically to allow those four freedoms. It has that "viral" copyleft feature (not allowing nonfree derivates) in order to protect those freedoms all the way through a life of a Free Software. And you people have to understand the obvious: There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Whenever you strive to the absolute freedom you end up in the opposite of it because what if you allow yourself to be absolutely free you inevitably end up harming someone elses freedom and thus the social *freedom* as a whole. Thus, absolute freedom is a self killer. Freedom, to really be and stay freedom has to have a *self-protective* restrictions (no more and no less). And that's what copyleft is all about. It is about providing and then protecting those freedoms. However, and now please read take notice, BSD is still Free Software, many other licenses are also Free Software licenses even if they are incompatible with GPL. Why? Because they still allow for those four basic freedoms and as long as they do, they are a Free Software licenses. The protective copyleft feature is a secondary issue not envisaged in the four freedoms. Now, those same licenses, including GPL usually also conform with the definition of open source as well. And that definition is actually a bit wider and more inclusive than Free Software one because its "ideology" is more loose then the clear Free Software ideology. That is why all Free Software licenses conform with the open source definition and can thus be called as both open source and Free Software licenses. In that case it's just a matter of your choice how would you call it. And that's where i come to probably the main point of this rant. Free Software and open source and the difference between them is not a primarily a matter of name calling. It is a political/ideological matter. It is a difference between two different approaches to usually the same software with, in most cases, the same freedoms and rights being provided. Free Software movement is founded first and it is one that holds that it is *freedom* that should be promoted and be a reason to adopt Free Software. It, for the same reasons, believes that it is unethical not to have those freedoms and therefore doesn't agrees with proprietary unfree software being an ethically right choice (even though we do believe it's a choice one is free to make, be it right or wrong one). Open source movement on the other hand rejects that ethics are the issue here focusing mainly on the practical benefits that a freedom bringing Free Software development model brings and an outcoming business model as well. That is why open source people generally don't see an ethical problem in unfree proprietary software and are also not against mixing proprietary with unfree software. The very term "open source" points only to the freedom 1 and 3 (in relation to source code being open) instead of freedom which is a point in all four freedoms. Also, the term Free Software may have an ambiguity problem, but the mere association of freedom with it when explaining it should very well be enough for an open minded person to know a difference between free as in free of cost (zero price) and free as in having freedom. In my opinion, open source is the term which has more fundamental problems than the term "Free Software". The reason for which it has become so popular (as well as their pragmatic ideology) is simply because we live in a pragmatic world where there are really few people of principles. Our world today is shaped in such a way that most of us believe your own prosperity means someone elses "bad luck" and nothing else matters. What works for you is good, no other questions asked: that's the main principle of today's society and open source movement, going by that poor and loose principle leaned on to it in order to make Free Software kinda appear that it fits the same principle, while it doesn't. Sorry for this...hm.. article.. hopefully my time writing this will be of at least *some* benefit to someone. Thank you Danijel Orsolic |
| hkwint Mar 27, 2005 2:23 AM EDT |
Libervis: You're explanation is a beneft to me, I think. However, there's still one thing that confuses me a bit. I always thought that "open source" is what corresponds to the OSI definition of Open Source. http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php So, you said: The very term "open source" points only to the freedom 1 and 3. However, when I look at freedom 0 and 2, there are parallels with the OSI open source definition. So let's compare them: Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. OSI DEF: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. OSI DEF: 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. OSI DEF: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software... Now, I think this is a 'sort of proof' that software that corresponds to the OSI open-source definition, also corresponds to the Free Software definition. That may be the point of confusion: Some people like me associate the Free Software characteristics with Open Source, because they read the OSI open-source definition (and get confused when RMS says they're different, which is also the point PaulFerris tried to make in the first post of this tread, I think), and also, people like me might tend to forget that unlimited freedom, like the BSD-license appears to give, finally takes away other freedoms. So, I think the problem is not that people mention something Open Source when it's actually Free Software (like GCC). I think the problem is people call some software Open Source while it doesn't comply to the OSI Open Source Definition. |
| Libervis Mar 27, 2005 4:57 AM EDT |
When i mentioned that open source term points only to the freedom 1 and 3 i was talking about the *term*, not the definition. What would one think when he hears the term "open source" and what would he think when he hears the term "Free Software" without reading the definitions. The term "open source" only implies one basic thing: the source code is accessible, but that's all. The term "free software" however simply implies that the software is free. And you don't need to read a definition to fix the ambiguity problem. You only associate it with freedom instead of cost which is already being done as the term "free as in freedom" is quite popular and very much used to fix this ambiguity. Besides the first "sight" hearing of the term there is a deeper meaning this. Once you know that "free" means freedom, you basically know what Free Software was and really is all about, freedom, even if you don't yet understand what exactly those freedoms are, you'll be drawed to explore them. And by entering the world of FOSS through that term, a newbie will be on a much different path to understanding Free Software then it would be if he got introduced to it through an open source term. Why? Because those are different ideologies, different ways of looking at things and thus a different way of presenting them. Just look at how the Free Software definition is formed and compare it to the style of open source definition. You can see a pure simplicity in the Free Software definition. Being open minded you can fully see what's the real deal. You know that it is about freedom, not just the *requirements* for a software license to be identified and approved as "open source". Simply said, both Free Software and open source in *most* cases mean the same software as both apply to the same definition, but the whole approach, the backing ideology is fundamentally very different which is why you just cannot say that it is the same if you use either of the terms. You will use that term which promotes the ideology that makes more sense to you. This means that if you are a pragmatists and don't believe that proprietary software is unethical or that ethics even don't have anything to do with software then you are very much a person who would simply use the term "open source" when refering to the free software, a pragmatist. If you however do understand that there is an ethical issue involved and that ethics and subsequently freedom is what matters the most here, not only the benefits of it, then you'll use the term Free Software and associate yourself with the Free Software movement. As for the GCC it indeed does conforms with both the open source and Free Software definition, but RMS urges us to call it Free Software instead of open source, even if we don't agree with the Free Software approach because GCC was developed because of freedom, not pragmacy. It was developed with the enthusiasm and for the goal of having freedom, not having good software that can make up a good business model. It is by my opinion completely justified to give GCC and Stallman (and Free Software movement as a whole) that much respect and call it Free Software because it was developed out of Free Software ideals, not the open source ideals. (which, again as i pointed out above, are very different). Thank you Danijel |
| peragrin Mar 28, 2005 2:53 AM EDT |
Libervis, The problem with 'Free software' is that for non software developers Free = money. non-software developers account for some 90% of the general population. So to 90% of the people they believe they don't have to pay for 'free software'. That is it's only benifit. They don't care how they get wha they need as long as it is provided at reasonable cost to them. If Free Software is truely Free why does the GPL specifically allow the ability to sell and resell the software. True it doesn't make sense to do so, but it is allowed. Free Software as defined very well by you and RMS is really Freedom Software. Software that can be bought and sold, yet you if you desire(for 10% of the people) still have the freedom to modify, and redistribute that software. As software goes to the general population one must keep in mind other definitions of words and work with those. I say 10% of the population deals with computers as programers and techs, that's roughly 30 million people for the USA. I would say that is probably close. |
| Libervis Mar 28, 2005 6:37 AM EDT |
It is "freedom software" yes, and i don't object to using that term as well, as long as it implies freedom. >> "If Free Software is truely Free why does the GPL specifically allow the ability to sell and resell the software. True it doesn't make sense to do so, but it is allowed." It is allowed because it is not the "free" software in monetary sense and it *never* was. Nor the freedom depends on being monetary free at all times. The word "free" in english means both, it has two meanings. It means "free of cost" and "free as in freedom". Many other languages such as Croatian for example (my native) have a special word for "free as in freedom" (slobodan) calling "Free Software" "Slobodan software" where it is pretty clear as to what it is and that it's not essentially monetary free. However, the term "open source" means pretty much the same thing in any translation and is also misleading as in avoiding to promote freedom as the main fundamental principle. Many, even english speakers, tend to use the term "libre software" instead. The point is this. Free software advocates do not wants you to use the term "Free Software" just because they want so or whatever. The term is less important than the message that it brings. This means that whatever term will clearly imply freedom is a good one. You may call it freedom software, software freedom, libre software, free as in freedom software or whatever.. Freedom is the key issue and that's the main point of *not* using the term "open source" which seems to hide that issue. Also, yes, some people may only value that one benefit of Free Software, low cost, but that doesn't means that they should not be aware of that low cost is and was not the main goal for developing Free Software nor that it is it's only benefit. Thank you Daniel |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!