5 ms·

I know my GPL from my BSD. I know FSF’s stand on “free” vs “open” software. That part is crystal clear to me. This piece confuses me though. It constantly see

I know my GPL from my BSD. I know FSF’s stand on “free” vs “open” software. That part is crystal clear to me. This piece confuses me though. It constantly seems to intermix and conflate “open source software” with “proprietary software”. Is that intentional? Do they really mean that? That “open source” software is in no way better than a closed-source, proprietary equivalent? That closed source and permissively licensed software is equivalent? They can’t possibly mean that, can they? Is it perhaps only badly written, and I’m reading too much into this?

the_af 6y ago
The article doesn't conflate open source with proprietary software. It elaborates on why Stallman wrote, so many years ago, that Open Source is misguided, or at least, that it doesn't share the same goals as Free Software. Here's the gist of it: - Open Source presents itself as a technically better alternative to proprietary software. Also, it often claims to be developed in a more collaborative way, "all bugs are shallow when there are many eyeballs", etc. If you want a specific name, someone who used to vocally make this kind of claims was Open Source's advocate Eric Raymond. - There is then the onus of proving this assertion. Is it true that Open Source is, as a norm, technically better than proprietary software as some of its more vocal advocates claim? Is it true that its development is more collaborative? - The article states that no, as any user can plainly see, Open Source is not always technically better than proprietary software. Open Source is often more difficult to use, or unpolished, or has a worse UI, and critically, many open source projects are maintained by a single person, so it's not really always developed more collaboratively. - The article states that this is not a problem for Free Software, because Free Software doesn't claim to be always technically better than proprietary software. It's not even its goal. Free Software claims to protect user's freedoms, even at the cost of being less polished or lacking some features.
- warkdarrior 6y ago
  That's a generous interpretation of the article. This line in the article shows the author's purposefully distorted view: > For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software, it is a problem to be worked through. I cannot think of an OSS project that tried to "explain away" the quality issues they have (as in "It's poor quality because it is open source"), as opposed to working on them ("Yes, this is a bug. We'll fix some time in the future.").
  - worik 6y ago
    I can When a Ubuntu update completely replaced the Desktop with buggy unity, with out warning or option, the response of Ubuntu developers was "it's open sauce software, you get it for free, stop complaining"
    - ziml77 6y ago
      It's also common to see "It's open source, fix it yourself."
    - merb 6y ago
      actually the first release was flawed, but I still liked unity. it's sad that it was so tangled to ubuntu.
      - worik 6y ago
        You miss the point, mostly. The update made a major change in the way the user interface worked. With the new user interface I found I could not easily access my programmes without spending a non trivial amount of time learning it, and there was no way back to the old interface, options fro running both etcetera. Ubunti was tremendously stable for a long time at that point, and I upgraded without hesitation. Not since! As you say the interface was buggy. Dreadfully buggy. It leaked memory badly, was clunky and slow. When I complained on my local Linux users mailing list (as did another member who had the same experience) the Ubuntu developers I knew personally took it as a personal affront. Since I had not paid for it, how dare I complain. They have a point. I do not use Ubuntu any more.
  - the_af 6y ago
    I think it's more about the general stance that OSS is in general technically superior, than about particular projects. The problem that must be "explained away" -- according to the article -- is not a particular flaw of a specific project, but the observation that OSS is not, in general, technically better. TFA states that OSS, by claiming it's technically superior, must defend itself when it's not superior. On the other hand, FSS must not defend against technical flaws or limitations because it doesn't claim it's technically superior, only that it respects user freedoms better.
dec0dedab0de 6y ago
The fsf considers open source to basically be a marketing tactic for companies to sell services around free software. They don't like that the open source movement is focused on practical reasons to use free/opensource when freedom should be the main reason to use it. Especially in light of the fact that many times it is impractical to choose free/opensource software over proprietary software. Free software focuses on principals over pragmatism They are using free and opensource as interchangeable terms for the same code, but used by people with different goals. I think at the time of this article, there was no license that was one and not the other. Bruce Perens has openly stated that the GPL was the example for the open source definition.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fsflover 6y ago
They don't mean that open source is the same as proprietary, but: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.....
Shared404 6y ago
> Is it perhaps only badly written I did not find it to be badly written. > I’m reading too much into this? I would think so. My interpretation was that "Open Source" advocates must win the argument that Open Source will always turn out higher quality software, while "Free Software" advocates have an inherent advantage in that the software is explicitly designed to protect freedoms and therefore starts out ahead of proprietary software, even if it's less featureful. Whether I agree with this argument, I'm unsure.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mrob 6y ago
Free Software prioritizes Freedom[0]. Both permissive and copyleft licenses can support this goal. Free Software developers use a permissive license when they judge that best supports their goal of maximizing Freedom (e.g. Ogg Vorbis using a permissive license to encourage people to switch from patent-encumbered MP3). Open Source Software prioritizes quality. Open Source Software developers do not care about Freedom except as a means to that end. However, almost all Open Source Software is also Free Software, so despite this difference they end up supporting Freedom as a byproduct. Proprietary software development also prioritizes quality, but the important difference is that proprietary software actively opposes Freedom. The article is discussing priorities, so it's natural for it to compare two methodologies with the same priority, but the two are not conflated. Open Source Software still (usually) provides Freedom, while proprietary software never does, and Freedom still matters even when the developers don't care about it. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
phkahler 6y ago
When the OSI first started approving open source licenses, it seemed like rain. Like every company wanted to create their own license with the intent to get free development work that they could then wrap up in closed commercial products. They were often incompatible with other licenses as well for that reason. To ensure code is maximally reusable IMHO all we need are MIT, BSD and GPL, LGPL. And two of those are not really different in my mind. I understand AGPL too, but not MPL or Apache licenses. But if they are needed then that really should be all of them. Any others have some kind of non-free agenda.

the_af 6y ago

The article doesn't conflate open source with proprietary software. It elaborates on why Stallman wrote, so many years ago, that Open Source is misguided, or at least, that it doesn't share the same goals as Free Software. Here's the gist of it: - Open Source presents itself as a technically better alternative to proprietary software. Also, it often claims to be developed in a more collaborative way, "all bugs are shallow when there are many eyeballs", etc. If you want a specific name, someone who used to vocally make this kind of claims was Open Source's advocate Eric Raymond. - There is then the onus of proving this assertion. Is it true that Open Source is, as a norm, technically better than proprietary software as some of its more vocal advocates claim? Is it true that its development is more collaborative? - The article states that no, as any user can plainly see, Open Source is not always technically better than proprietary software. Open Source is often more difficult to use, or unpolished, or has a worse UI, and critically, many open source projects are maintained by a single person, so it's not really always developed more collaboratively. - The article states that this is not a problem for Free Software, because Free Software doesn't claim to be always technically better than proprietary software. It's not even its goal. Free Software claims to protect user's freedoms, even at the cost of being less polished or lacking some features.

warkdarrior 6y ago
That's a generous interpretation of the article. This line in the article shows the author's purposefully distorted view: > For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software, it is a problem to be worked through. I cannot think of an OSS project that tried to "explain away" the quality issues they have (as in "It's poor quality because it is open source"), as opposed to working on them ("Yes, this is a bug. We'll fix some time in the future.").
- worik 6y ago
  I can When a Ubuntu update completely replaced the Desktop with buggy unity, with out warning or option, the response of Ubuntu developers was "it's open sauce software, you get it for free, stop complaining"
  - ziml77 6y ago
    It's also common to see "It's open source, fix it yourself."
  - merb 6y ago
    actually the first release was flawed, but I still liked unity. it's sad that it was so tangled to ubuntu.
    - worik 6y ago
      You miss the point, mostly. The update made a major change in the way the user interface worked. With the new user interface I found I could not easily access my programmes without spending a non trivial amount of time learning it, and there was no way back to the old interface, options fro running both etcetera. Ubunti was tremendously stable for a long time at that point, and I upgraded without hesitation. Not since! As you say the interface was buggy. Dreadfully buggy. It leaked memory badly, was clunky and slow. When I complained on my local Linux users mailing list (as did another member who had the same experience) the Ubuntu developers I knew personally took it as a personal affront. Since I had not paid for it, how dare I complain. They have a point. I do not use Ubuntu any more.
- the_af 6y ago
  I think it's more about the general stance that OSS is in general technically superior, than about particular projects. The problem that must be "explained away" -- according to the article -- is not a particular flaw of a specific project, but the observation that OSS is not, in general, technically better. TFA states that OSS, by claiming it's technically superior, must defend itself when it's not superior. On the other hand, FSS must not defend against technical flaws or limitations because it doesn't claim it's technically superior, only that it respects user freedoms better.

dec0dedab0de 6y ago

The fsf considers open source to basically be a marketing tactic for companies to sell services around free software. They don't like that the open source movement is focused on practical reasons to use free/opensource when freedom should be the main reason to use it. Especially in light of the fact that many times it is impractical to choose free/opensource software over proprietary software. Free software focuses on principals over pragmatism They are using free and opensource as interchangeable terms for the same code, but used by people with different goals. I think at the time of this article, there was no license that was one and not the other. Bruce Perens has openly stated that the GPL was the example for the open source definition.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fsflover 6y ago

They don't mean that open source is the same as proprietary, but: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.....

Shared404 6y ago

> Is it perhaps only badly written I did not find it to be badly written. > I’m reading too much into this? I would think so. My interpretation was that "Open Source" advocates must win the argument that Open Source will always turn out higher quality software, while "Free Software" advocates have an inherent advantage in that the software is explicitly designed to protect freedoms and therefore starts out ahead of proprietary software, even if it's less featureful. Whether I agree with this argument, I'm unsure.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mrob 6y ago

Free Software prioritizes Freedom[0]. Both permissive and copyleft licenses can support this goal. Free Software developers use a permissive license when they judge that best supports their goal of maximizing Freedom (e.g. Ogg Vorbis using a permissive license to encourage people to switch from patent-encumbered MP3). Open Source Software prioritizes quality. Open Source Software developers do not care about Freedom except as a means to that end. However, almost all Open Source Software is also Free Software, so despite this difference they end up supporting Freedom as a byproduct. Proprietary software development also prioritizes quality, but the important difference is that proprietary software actively opposes Freedom. The article is discussing priorities, so it's natural for it to compare two methodologies with the same priority, but the two are not conflated. Open Source Software still (usually) provides Freedom, while proprietary software never does, and Freedom still matters even when the developers don't care about it. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

phkahler 6y ago

When the OSI first started approving open source licenses, it seemed like rain. Like every company wanted to create their own license with the intent to get free development work that they could then wrap up in closed commercial products. They were often incompatible with other licenses as well for that reason. To ensure code is maximally reusable IMHO all we need are MIT, BSD and GPL, LGPL. And two of those are not really different in my mind. I understand AGPL too, but not MPL or Apache licenses. But if they are needed then that really should be all of them. Any others have some kind of non-free agenda.