4 ms·

It refers to almost the same software. The difference is more on emphasis and what you care about than the set of software it refers to. It's about the underlyi

It refers to almost the same software. The difference is more on emphasis and what you care about than the set of software it refers to. It's about the underlying philosophy. I say this because it's important to remember that open source is also intended to refer to a strict definition that also addresses user freedoms. The open source definition for example forbids discriminating against fields of endeavour and says the software should be usable for any purpose. "Open source" doesn't just mean visible source. OpenBSD calls itself free software despite being opposed to copyleft, for example. Open source and free software are more allies than enemies, and I think it's important to remember that both want user freedom. They just express it in different ways and to a different degree.

mikegerwitz 9y ago
> and I think it's important to remember that both want user freedom As a free software activist, I haven't found that to be true. Remember that the term "open source" was created explicitly to sell the development methodology to businesses without talking about the ethical issues. When developers write software under the umbrella of "open source", many aren't even aware of software freedom issues---they may be doing it because their peers are doing it; because they were told they should do it for a portfolio to get a job; or maybe because they like sharing their software with others. Some businesses liberate their code merely for contributions or press. That's certainly not the case for all open source developers---there is, as you said, an overlap. But it's important to use the term "free software" and talk about software freedom to start those discussions and get people thinking about software freedom.
- arise 9y ago
  As a free software activist, do you think our effectual software freedoms would have advanced as far as they have without OSI's emphasize on the practical aspects of libre software? Do you think Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens could have made similar inroads with businesses if they had stuck to the (ambiguous, IMO) "free software" moniker?
  - mikegerwitz 9y ago
    I can't speculate what the norm might be today if businesses were talking about free software instead of "open source". It might have provided benefit to the movement, or it might have diluted the term. Ironically, in making the distinction between open source and free software, we have the opportunity to clarify its meaning and make a clear distinction between methodology and ethics/ideology. Open source---regardless of whether history would have been different if the term had never originated---has contributed significantly to the dissemination of free software and the amount of software released under free licenses. But it's completely disproportionate to the amount it has advanced the principles of software freedom. Is it good that more people are using free software? Is it good that there is so much of it available? Absolutely---I'm able to run a fully free system, down to the BIOS. But I'm among a small group that does so on principle, and will not abandon freedom for proprietary software that is more feature-rich, performant, etc.
cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
Open source focuses on the technical. Free software focuses on the political Stallman has said many times he wasn't trying to move the state of technology forward with GNU projects - just trying to have a libre computing base because it was the best political option.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > Political I'd say a better word is philosophical. Even in the absence of any kind of politics the concept of maximizing user freedom can make sense in itself.
LukeShu 9y ago
As I've said many times before: "Free Software" and "Open Source Software" refer to almost the same sets of software; but the "Free Software" movement/ideology and the "Open Source" movement/ideology are very different. And if we're talking about giving money to a foundation that does advocacy, it's the latter that matters more. Because FS and OSS do refer to almost the same set of software, they are allies (more OSS means more FS and more FS means more OSS), but that doesn't make them friends. You are correct that OS does refer to more than just visible source. However, the OS movement/ideology does not care about user freedom as an objective, the OS ideology is based around the belief that user freedom leads to better, higher-quality software, for less dev cost; which is good business. Within the OS ideology and movement there is room to believe that there are situations where that isn't true, and that it can be the right decision to restrict user freedom. In the OS ideology, user freedom is the strategy, not the objective. In the FS ideology, user freedom is the objective; it is never the right decision to restrict user freedom. OpenBSD is a different topic: it is free software, and considers user freedom to be an objective. However, they disagree with GNU/FSF about whether copyleft/the GPL is a good strategy for user freedom.
ekianjo 9y ago
> "Open source" doesn't just mean visible source. That's not how Microsoft uses the word "Open Source" so the expression is completely void of meaning nowadays.

mikegerwitz 9y ago

> and I think it's important to remember that both want user freedom As a free software activist, I haven't found that to be true. Remember that the term "open source" was created explicitly to sell the development methodology to businesses without talking about the ethical issues. When developers write software under the umbrella of "open source", many aren't even aware of software freedom issues---they may be doing it because their peers are doing it; because they were told they should do it for a portfolio to get a job; or maybe because they like sharing their software with others. Some businesses liberate their code merely for contributions or press. That's certainly not the case for all open source developers---there is, as you said, an overlap. But it's important to use the term "free software" and talk about software freedom to start those discussions and get people thinking about software freedom.

arise 9y ago
As a free software activist, do you think our effectual software freedoms would have advanced as far as they have without OSI's emphasize on the practical aspects of libre software? Do you think Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens could have made similar inroads with businesses if they had stuck to the (ambiguous, IMO) "free software" moniker?
- mikegerwitz 9y ago
  I can't speculate what the norm might be today if businesses were talking about free software instead of "open source". It might have provided benefit to the movement, or it might have diluted the term. Ironically, in making the distinction between open source and free software, we have the opportunity to clarify its meaning and make a clear distinction between methodology and ethics/ideology. Open source---regardless of whether history would have been different if the term had never originated---has contributed significantly to the dissemination of free software and the amount of software released under free licenses. But it's completely disproportionate to the amount it has advanced the principles of software freedom. Is it good that more people are using free software? Is it good that there is so much of it available? Absolutely---I'm able to run a fully free system, down to the BIOS. But I'm among a small group that does so on principle, and will not abandon freedom for proprietary software that is more feature-rich, performant, etc.

cuckcuckspruce 9y ago

Open source focuses on the technical. Free software focuses on the political Stallman has said many times he wasn't trying to move the state of technology forward with GNU projects - just trying to have a libre computing base because it was the best political option.

ekianjo 9y ago
> Political I'd say a better word is philosophical. Even in the absence of any kind of politics the concept of maximizing user freedom can make sense in itself.

LukeShu 9y ago

As I've said many times before: "Free Software" and "Open Source Software" refer to almost the same sets of software; but the "Free Software" movement/ideology and the "Open Source" movement/ideology are very different. And if we're talking about giving money to a foundation that does advocacy, it's the latter that matters more. Because FS and OSS do refer to almost the same set of software, they are allies (more OSS means more FS and more FS means more OSS), but that doesn't make them friends. You are correct that OS does refer to more than just visible source. However, the OS movement/ideology does not care about user freedom as an objective, the OS ideology is based around the belief that user freedom leads to better, higher-quality software, for less dev cost; which is good business. Within the OS ideology and movement there is room to believe that there are situations where that isn't true, and that it can be the right decision to restrict user freedom. In the OS ideology, user freedom is the strategy, not the objective. In the FS ideology, user freedom is the objective; it is never the right decision to restrict user freedom. OpenBSD is a different topic: it is free software, and considers user freedom to be an objective. However, they disagree with GNU/FSF about whether copyleft/the GPL is a good strategy for user freedom.

ekianjo 9y ago

> "Open source" doesn't just mean visible source. That's not how Microsoft uses the word "Open Source" so the expression is completely void of meaning nowadays.