4 ms·

No, the intention of "open source" was to have a synonym for "free software". http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source

by jordigh 11y ago

No, the intention of "open source" was to have a synonym for "free software". http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... They mean the same thing in the same way that "digital rights management" and "digital restrictions management" means the same thing: they refer to the same thing, but give a different slant to refer to the same thing.

the_af 11y ago
Like you mentioned in your article, this indeed seems to be Bruce Perens' opinion. However, notice how both Eric Raymond (on the side of open source) and Richard Stallman (on the side of free software) disagree with him. If you listen to people like Eric Raymond, open source is all about quality. "Many eyes make all bugs shallow", etc. If you listen to people like Richard Stallman, free software is all about users' rights: in some cases free software may be of higher quality than comparable proprietary software, but that's just a welcome side-effect -- what matters is that it respects users' rights. In this view, free software would be worthwhile even if it was technically inferior to contemporary proprietary software. Or to put it another way: if Eric Raymond one days wakes up convinced that Open Source is technically inferior, he must drop it in order to remain consistent with his own justifications. If Richard Stallman one day wakes up convinced Free Software is technically inferior, he will remain committed to it, since technical quality was never his primary goal. I'd say that's a pretty big philosophical difference!
- jordigh 11y ago
  Yes, I'm very well that they refer to philosophical differences. But they are both talking about the same damn software. Not the same philosophy, but the same software. This is something everyone agrees about, not just Bruce Perens. This is also the official position of OSI, not just Bruce Perens': that open source is just another name for free software.
  - jeena 11y ago
    That is not true, because every free software is open source, but not every open source software is free. (this is me oversimplifying to make a point)
    - ymse 11y ago
      It's not that simple. Open source implies the source is out there for anyone to study. Free software is not necessarily free of charge and readily available. Nothing prevents you from paywalling a GPL program as long as you distribute sources to legitimate users on request. Free as in freedom, not as in beer.
      - richardfontana 11y ago
        Open source as formally defined by the OSI is also not necessarily free of charge and readily available to everyone. The GPL of course is an open source license, some revisionist tendencies to use "open source" to refer only to non-GPL-family licenses notwithstanding.
        ymse 11y ago
        I had never looked up the OSI definition[0], but you are of course entirely correct. So the difference between free and open source software is the "four freedoms", which I think we all knew to begin with.. :) 0: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
        icebraining 11y ago
        The OSI definition includes the four freedoms, just stated in different ways: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" - "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor." "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" - "The program must include source code (...) The license must allow modifications and derived works" "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor" - "The program (...) must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others" - "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." That's why almost all software considered "open source" is also "free software" and vice-versa.
- antod 11y ago
  > If you listen to people like Eric Raymond, open source is all about quality. "Many eyes make all bugs shallow", etc. I'm not a fan of ESR at all (he's a bit of a paranoid nutcase), but you are taking that way out of context here. The "given enough eyeballs" quote was about project leadership styles not software licensing. It was about empowering and accepting many contributors into a project (the bazaar) instead of having a small clique in charge of a project (the cathedral). > Or to put it another way: if Eric Raymond one days wakes up convinced that Open Source is technically inferior, he must drop it in order to remain consistent with his own justifications. ESR thought that attracting large contributor bases to projects was the key to improving quality. Not that Open Source automatically means better quality.

by jordigh 11y ago

the_af 11y ago

Like you mentioned in your article, this indeed seems to be Bruce Perens' opinion. However, notice how both Eric Raymond (on the side of open source) and Richard Stallman (on the side of free software) disagree with him. If you listen to people like Eric Raymond, open source is all about quality. "Many eyes make all bugs shallow", etc. If you listen to people like Richard Stallman, free software is all about users' rights: in some cases free software may be of higher quality than comparable proprietary software, but that's just a welcome side-effect -- what matters is that it respects users' rights. In this view, free software would be worthwhile even if it was technically inferior to contemporary proprietary software. Or to put it another way: if Eric Raymond one days wakes up convinced that Open Source is technically inferior, he must drop it in order to remain consistent with his own justifications. If Richard Stallman one day wakes up convinced Free Software is technically inferior, he will remain committed to it, since technical quality was never his primary goal. I'd say that's a pretty big philosophical difference!

jordigh 11y ago
Yes, I'm very well that they refer to philosophical differences. But they are both talking about the same damn software. Not the same philosophy, but the same software. This is something everyone agrees about, not just Bruce Perens. This is also the official position of OSI, not just Bruce Perens': that open source is just another name for free software.
- jeena 11y ago
  That is not true, because every free software is open source, but not every open source software is free. (this is me oversimplifying to make a point)
  - ymse 11y ago
    It's not that simple. Open source implies the source is out there for anyone to study. Free software is not necessarily free of charge and readily available. Nothing prevents you from paywalling a GPL program as long as you distribute sources to legitimate users on request. Free as in freedom, not as in beer.
    - richardfontana 11y ago
      Open source as formally defined by the OSI is also not necessarily free of charge and readily available to everyone. The GPL of course is an open source license, some revisionist tendencies to use "open source" to refer only to non-GPL-family licenses notwithstanding.
      - ymse 11y ago
        I had never looked up the OSI definition[0], but you are of course entirely correct. So the difference between free and open source software is the "four freedoms", which I think we all knew to begin with.. :) 0: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
        icebraining 11y ago
        The OSI definition includes the four freedoms, just stated in different ways: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" - "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor." "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" - "The program must include source code (...) The license must allow modifications and derived works" "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor" - "The program (...) must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others" - "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." That's why almost all software considered "open source" is also "free software" and vice-versa.
antod 11y ago
> If you listen to people like Eric Raymond, open source is all about quality. "Many eyes make all bugs shallow", etc. I'm not a fan of ESR at all (he's a bit of a paranoid nutcase), but you are taking that way out of context here. The "given enough eyeballs" quote was about project leadership styles not software licensing. It was about empowering and accepting many contributors into a project (the bazaar) instead of having a small clique in charge of a project (the cathedral). > Or to put it another way: if Eric Raymond one days wakes up convinced that Open Source is technically inferior, he must drop it in order to remain consistent with his own justifications. ESR thought that attracting large contributor bases to projects was the key to improving quality. Not that Open Source automatically means better quality.