OSNews

You are right, but Thom only linked the article from Zdnet UK. You can't expect Zdnet to really knw the difference between open source and free software.

Sigh... I must admit that I'm getting somewhat tired of the seemingly endless free software vs. open source quarrelling... Besides, the interview article itself has not much to do with that fight - it deals with much more general issues.

(I'm not willing to take any side in that endless free software vs. open source fight, especially here, but anyway:) people who are not hardcore GNU/FSF supporters often seem to prefer the more relaxed open source term simply because it seems to be a broader term and so also includes free software within its broader borders (a single short descriptive term instead of complicated explanations and fights). Also, actually in the article they use the term "free and open software" - probably just in order to be able to speak about both open source and free software.

The term open-source (written with a hyphen, by the way, so not exactly the same as "open source" if you want to nit-pick terms.. ;-) is used only in the article title, perhaps some editor just wanted as short a title as possible, and open-source just happens to be a relatively short term.

Also, actually they do mainly use the term free software in this story, and, the Free Software Foundation is mentioned several times too - so no reason to lose your sleep for such a small issue here - even if your were an ardent free software partisan..?

Edited 2007-05-13 00:18

Open-source software is not really any broader than free software. In fact, most open-source software is free software. The one notable license that is open-source but not free software is an early version of the Apple Public Source License, and this has since been resolved.

One common misconception is that free software has to be under a copyleft license. However, non-copyleft licenses, even the BSD and X11, which have no explicit requirement to distribute corresponding source code, are considered free software so long as the source is made available. The FSF recommends copyleft licenses but also recommends the LGPL for situations where copyleft might not be practical.

There is currently no strong copyleft license that terminates in response to patent aggression. That's the role of the upcoming GPLv3. The GPLv2 is incompatible with free software licenses that include these kinds of patent termination cases or ones that require an explicit patent license grant to the recipient. Copyleft, by definition, creates license compatibility challenges. Hence there are many free software licenses that are incompatible with the GPL because of additional restrictions that are actually supported by the FSF. For example, while the 3-clause BSD is GPL-compatible, the Apache 2.0 is not.

There are also many free software licenses that are incompatible with the GPL because of restrictions that are not supported by the FSF. These licenses usually break compatibility with the GPL over issues like attribution and clauses that prevent the software from inclusion in non-gratis free software products. The CDDL requires all kinds of attributions to be retained and grants the original distributor exclusive patent rights in modifications. The FSF also objects to the use of the term "intellectual property" in the CDDL.

The choice of the terms "free software" or "open-source software" reflects a distinction in whether the emphasis is on the concept or the implications of freedom as it relates to software. Most of the time, this simply doesn't matter, and the terms can be used interchangeably. Or at least that's my take on this, as my own use of the terms is mixed and inconsistent.

It should be clear that many people not directly involved in the free software movement, simply find the term "free software" very vague.

Probably everyone reading OSnews has noticed that many ordinary people believe that "free software" must mean the same as freeware. Why? Because the term is so vague, full of emotional and political emotion but not too scientific in the way it uses the term free.

So what does the term "free" mean especially when used with software? Why do people have to explain the term "free software" all the time and write long articles only about the meaning of the term? The fact is that free software is quite far from being an exact scientific term.

Free software is meant to be a catchy political term.

The term open source, on the other hand is just a simple and descriptive term: the source code is open, and that's it.

A good term (good in scientific and semiotic sense) should be as clear as possible without too much extra explaining needed. However, the concept of free software doesn't in itself aim for conceptual clarity at all but it rather reflects a certain political agenda.

In summary: It is just simply so that many people who value conceptual clarity - and perhaps also try to be neutral about political agendas - rather prefer a simpler and clearer term like "open source" instead of more political terms like "free software". However, they may still have nothing against the free software ideology and may even be strong supporters of it. They just prefer clear and neutral terminology. Simple, no?

Here's a suggestion to all freesoftware partisans: If you think that open source is not a suitable term to cover both free software and other sorts of open source, please, tell us what would be a better general term for software that is not closed source software but the source code is open?

I think that the main original goal of using the term open source may have been only to have a more neutral and broader term than the more political concept of free software. However, FSF didn't accept that new general term. So any better suggestions for a broad general term that covers all open sourcre and free software, please?

Oh, and I have basically nothing against the free software ideology. So don't try to put me into some odd open source against free software crowd where I do not belong to. I just try to be objective and neutral with terminology here.

Edited 2007-05-13 17:02

In other words, although you can find the FSF definition for the term free software in many places ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software ) there exists huge amounts of various different meanings for the word "free" in different contexts, and the FSF definition of the word free doesn't cover but a very, very tiny subset of the various meanings of the term free. Thus the term free software in itself seems to need explaining all the time. That may even be the most common and very simple reason why many IT people may prefer the clearer concept "open source" - whether they support the FSF ideology or not. Actually, they may even prefer the term "free software" with those "free software insiders" who do know the FSF definition of the term, but using the term "free software" among ordinary people may cause lots of endless confusion just because of the vagueness of the term "free".

Edited 2007-05-13 17:19

>Why? Because the term is so vague [..] So what does the term "free" mean especially when used with software?

It means "free as in freedom" like in "free speech" or "free labour". English speaking people can understand that "free speech" doesn't mean "gratis speech" and "free labour" doesn't mean "gratis labour" so why shouldn't they understand "Free Software"? I have explained Free Software to many people who have never before heard about it. And you know what? They understand it directly, because "free as in freedom" and the 4 freedoms which defines Free Software are really logical and understandable. It's is even nice that they could repeat the 4 freedoms 1-2 weeks later if i talked to them again. Try this with Open Source and the 10 point (!) Open Source Definition.

You ask: "What does free mean?". You can also ask "What does open mean?"
You have to explain both, but "free software" covers an original meaning of the word free and matched pretty well with the 4 freedoms while "open source" doesn't have a natural meaning which matches the 10 point definition. Also an big advantage of Free Software is that i can speak with the people in their own language and in many of these languages "Free Software" is even unequivocal. For example: logiciels libre, software libre, software libero,...

Also important. It's just a matter of respect to follow the language of the person who have defined and named this kind of software first.

> It is just simply so that many people who value conceptual clarity - and perhaps also try to be neutral about political agendas

no term is really neutral. Whether you decide to talk about freedom in the digital age or not, it's always a political statement. Once it's "freedom matters" and once it's "freedom doesn't matters".

>please, tell us what would be a better general term for software that is not closed source software but the source code is open?

What does it mean that source code is open?
Probably you mean software which gives the users the freedom to run the program for any purpose, to study it and adapt it to their needs, to distribute copies and to distribute modified copies. I have a term for it: Free Software.

Or do you mean software where the source code is open so that you can read it but can't change it or distribute it to others? I don't know a term for it. Maybe you could call it "open source" because it matches the natural meaning of open. I would just call it non-Free Software.

Edited 2007-05-13 17:43

Perhaps you don't get it right. It's not about on which side you are or what's your opinion on any of these issues.

If someone advocates X, but not Y, he wants to be referred as "X advocate" and not "Y advocate", especially as the difference matters to _him/her_.

The FSF, and Eben Moglen in person, advocate X, not Y. In fact, they even strongly advocate X versus(!) Y. They strongly advocate to not believe in open-source software, if it's not also free (as in their definition of free). And they dislike the term open-source as they see it as an attempt to erode their free software movement (and many claim it was indeed formed in this purpose).


So wether you are with them or not, you have to respect this - or will automatically talk against their beliefs.

p.s.: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html is exactly the article I wanted to refer to..

Edited 2007-05-13 15:02

>I was always under the impression "free software and open source" were one in the same.

Than maybe you should read this to understand the differences: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html