I wanted to share my view of the free software / open source concepts and also check for correctness. So here's it:
Free software talks mostly about the liberties of a software user and less about the means to develop the software it self ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html):
- 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
I noticed this talks little about the way software development is actually organized. One guy can stay alone in his cellar and make a marvelous software and then publish it under a free software license, without working with others at all.
Open source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php) talks very little about the actual end user, and more about how the software is developed, the actual process of developing software.
I know this is a sore point in most communities, I was hoping to bring a new perspective on the matter. So don't bust me if I got it wrong.
"Bogdan Bivolaru" bogdan.bivolaru@gmail.com wrote:
I wanted to share my view of the free software / open source concepts and also check for correctness. So here's it:
Free software talks mostly about the liberties of a software user and less about the means to develop the software it self ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html):
- 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
I noticed this talks little about the way software development is actually organized. One guy can stay alone in his cellar and make a marvelous software and then publish it under a free software license, without working with others at all.
Free Software provides and protects freedom. You can choose how you want to "experience" your freedom.
Open source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php) talks very little about the actual end user, and more about how the software is developed, the actual process of developing software.
I don't think that a certain development methodology is forced by the open source definition. The very important aspect of this definition is that it never mentions freedom. This is a very significant difference.
I know this is a sore point in most communities, I was hoping to bring a new perspective on the matter. So don't bust me if I got it wrong.
So what's the new perspective?
Regards Matthias-Christian
Le 15 févr. 08 à 21:28, Matthias-Christian Ott a écrit :
So what's the new perspective?
I understand that Bogdan felt a difference in the presentation of the two approaches.
Open Source movement, if opensource.org is representative of it, is driven by a way of developping software as it is stated in the first sentence of their website : "Open source is a development method for software (...)" The Free Software freedoms are not claimed for their philosophy, and respect to the user, but presented as an efficient way to develop good software. It's relying extensively on the fact that communities exist around sofware in order for them to live, and wa could maybe say that the movement is driven by those communities. Nothing in what has been said having to be taken as a negative judgment about Open Source Initiative, but merely a statement.
On any gnu site, you'll be told about those fundamental freedoms given (back) to the user.
Even if in the end these all boil down to the four primary freedoms, the two give us different approaches, and even philosophical point of view, of Free Software.
If in my opinion I'd stick to the GNU philosophy, I have to admit that the pragmatic approach of OSI ensures a better penetration in the world of business. As Free Software are really growing at the moment, it's not that unusual to see different styles poping up, by the way showing that it's beeing appropriated by different and new people, eventually philosophically far from the original idea. It's a kind of natural consequence of the spreading of an idea which we could also observe in other areas.
So Bogdan, if you want to advocate and spread Free Software around you, I think the best way is yours whatever it is if it fit both you and your audience ! Sounds like a zen stanza :-) The only things that you'll always have to repeat are those four freedoms to educate people understand that the 'free' as in beer can only be possible because of the 'Free' as in speech, which is the most important notion.
Free Software can be developped by a single one, but they often live better when supported by an active community after.
Michel Roche
On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 00:39 +0100, Michel Roche wrote:
Le 15 févr. 08 à 21:28, Matthias-Christian Ott a écrit :
So what's the new perspective?
I understand that Bogdan felt a difference in the presentation of the two approaches.
Open Source movement, if opensource.org is representative of it, is driven by a way of developping software as it is stated in the first sentence of their website : "Open source is a development method for software (...)"
Which is *very* debatable, a license definition can't really define a development model, at most it may induce, due to some provisions about redistribution, a certain collaborative model. But no more than that.
Unfortunately most people do not understand that a license is a license is a license, and nothing else. It's not law, it's not a code of ethics, it's not a development model, or a community organization model.
The Free Software freedoms are not claimed for their philosophy, and respect to the user, but presented as an efficient way to develop good software. It's relying extensively on the fact that communities exist around sofware in order for them to live, and wa could maybe say that the movement is driven by those communities. Nothing in what has been said having to be taken as a negative judgment about Open Source Initiative, but merely a statement.
Despite some false (imo) assumptions, it gained momentum, but only because communities pre-existed, imo.
On any gnu site, you'll be told about those fundamental freedoms given (back) to the user.
Even if in the end these all boil down to the four primary freedoms, the two give us different approaches, and even philosophical point of view, of Free Software.
The differences are mostly political. I do not think there is much philosophy in the Open Source approach (therefore they claim to be "practical").
If in my opinion I'd stick to the GNU philosophy, I have to admit that the pragmatic approach of OSI ensures a better penetration in the world of business. As Free Software are really growing at the moment, it's not that unusual to see different styles poping up, by the way showing that it's beeing appropriated by different and new people, eventually philosophically far from the original idea. It's a kind of natural consequence of the spreading of an idea which we could also observe in other areas.
Politics is all about splitting hairs, isn't it? :) Most of the current western political parties sprung off the same ideals generated by the french revolution, and yet they were able to polarize and become quite different beasts.
So Bogdan, if you want to advocate and spread Free Software around you, I think the best way is yours whatever it is if it fit both you and your audience ! Sounds like a zen stanza :-) The only things that you'll always have to repeat are those four freedoms to educate people understand that the 'free' as in beer can only be possible because of the 'Free' as in speech, which is the most important notion.
I don't think that talking about free beer helps at all, on the contrary I'd argue that explaining that free software is successful commercially (often called open source in this context) and is just a saner competitive market can help a lot (depending on the audience of course).
Free Software can be developped by a single one, but they often live better when supported by an active community after.
Better if it is a community of users, that possibly end up paying for development one way or another. Most successful projects sustain themselves only because the software was good enough to be adopted by "commercial" players that start funding directly or indirectly the core developers of the said community (with some notable exceptions).
Simo.
Le 16 févr. 08 à 18:43, simo a écrit :
Open Source movement, if opensource.org is representative of it, is driven by a way of developping software as it is stated in the first sentence of their website : "Open source is a development method for software (...)"
Which is *very* debatable, a license definition can't really define a development model, at most it may induce, due to some provisions about redistribution, a certain collaborative model. But no more than that.
Unfortunately most people do not understand that a license is a license is a license, and nothing else. It's not law, it's not a code of ethics, it's not a development model, or a community organization model.
I do agree, but the feeling when reading OSI website is different, they're really trying to present Free Software as a business model. I personnaly don't like much this approach, but I must admit that : 1- they have the freedom to behave like this, and say what the say 2- 'till they still defend Free Software, it's not that a big deal after all. I have my mind, people have another, but if the software is still free...
Even if in the end these all boil down to the four primary freedoms, the two give us different approaches, and even philosophical point of view, of Free Software.
The differences are mostly political. I do not think there is much philosophy in the Open Source approach (therefore they claim to be "practical").
I only tried to be generous to OSI and not looking too negative :-) But OK, it's a political point of view.
So Bogdan, if you want to advocate and spread Free Software around you, I think the best way is yours whatever it is if it fit both you and your audience ! Sounds like a zen stanza :-) The only things that you'll always have to repeat are those four freedoms to educate people understand that the 'free' as in beer can only be possible because of the 'Free' as in speech, which is the most important notion.
I don't think that talking about free beer helps at all, on the contrary I'd argue that explaining that free software is successful commercially (often called open source in this context) and is just a saner competitive market can help a lot (depending on the audience of course).
I still agree, but I hardly ever had a conference about Free Software where the question didn't came about price. And it's not a matter of language : I'm french, so you don't have any doubt between "Libre" and "gratuit' ;-) But this questions arises very quickly because in their mind many people do consider that if they use a 'freeware' (as in beer), they are as free to do what thay want with as we use a Free Software. We shouldn't have to talk about that, but we still have to since education of the masses hasn't ended up yet on the subject :-))
Free Software can be developped by a single one, but they often live better when supported by an active community after.
Better if it is a community of users, that possibly end up paying for development one way or another. Most successful projects sustain themselves only because the software was good enough to be adopted by "commercial" players that start funding directly or indirectly the core developers of the said community (with some notable exceptions).
The community is often funders driven, is that what you want to say ? You're certainly right, let's not dream too much. But in the end, since the software is Free, the funders cannot steal it, and that's a real warranty for the end user. Of course, in the choice of taking a direction or another, the big funders may have more importance, which is not exactly democratic. It's certainly something we'll have to build in the next years : how should we drive Free Software developpments ?
Michel
I know this is a sore point in most communities, I was hoping to bring a new perspective on the matter. So don't bust me if I got it wrong.
Yes, Open Source and Free Software are very different.
Free Software is about ethics and Open Source is about pragmatism.
There is no reason you can't support both or use both on a project.
-- Noah Slater http://bytesexual.org/
On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 02:16:42PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
I know this is a sore point in most communities, I was hoping to bring a new perspective on the matter. So don't bust me if I got it wrong.
Yes, Open Source and Free Software are very different.
Free Software is about ethics and Open Source is about pragmatism.
There is no reason you can't support both or use both on a project.
In fact, I don't know why people constantly say that.
Pragmatism is interesting since it is actually saying that "ends justify all means" since what matters is purely the practical results.
So by saying something is pragmatic, is that a compliment or an insult?
I think most people use "pragmatism" as an eufemism for "the ends justify all means".
I observe that the Free Software culture is actually codifies ethical pragmatism.
In truth, as far as I see it, the difference between Free Software and Open Source is that Open Source shuns "Freedom" as if it was a disease, and "insults" of zealotry are shouted way too easily by some proponents, much the sameway George W Bush shouts terrorism way too easily.
And in fact, the Open Source Definition is like an attempt to describe the pragmatical results of Free Software, so it could also be said that it's like the philosophical dicotomy between what is a thing and what we perceive the thing to be.
Rui
On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 14:16 +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
I know this is a sore point in most communities, I was hoping to bring a new perspective on the matter. So don't bust me if I got it wrong.
Yes, Open Source and Free Software are very different.
For who knows the difference (not many) there is a difference in points of view, but saying they are "very" different, is plain false (unless you are emotionally affected by the debate).
Both "camps" use basically the same set of licenses, and 99.99% of the software that is defined Open Source is also Free Software.
Free Software is about ethics and Open Source is about pragmatism.
Open Source is a bit more about marketing, there is a strong "Open Source" ethic so to speak. Open Source avoids the term "free", for some people it's really about not being interested in freedom, for others is just about the confusion between gratis and free.
There is no reason you can't support both or use both on a project.
You can't "use" them, they are definitions not tools. A project "is" Free/Open Source Software or not.
You can decide which definition you like the most and use that preferentially, but they are, at all effects largely equivalent and I see (I know, heresy!) not ashamed in saying Open Source if I know the person I am talking to is more comfortable with that term. While I do use Free Software preferentially with people that don't have an opinion, or don't know at all what FOSS is, and, of course, in the rare cases when the context make the 2 terms not equivalent.
Simo.
Noah Slater nslater@bytesexual.org wrote:
I know this is a sore point in most communities, I was hoping to bring a new perspective on the matter. So don't bust me if I got it wrong.
Yes, Open Source and Free Software are very different.
Free Software is about ethics and Open Source is about pragmatism.
Open Source has in fact its own ethics. You can be without ethics. The difference is that they preassume this capitalistic ethics and make it their ethical foundation.
There is no reason you can't support both or use both on a project.
Yep, talking with Linus about proprietary licenced kernel modules makes no sense. You can just cooperate with Open Source people within their framework and vice versa.
Regards Matthias-Christian
Matthias-Christian Ott ott@enolink.de wrote:
[...] You can be without ethics.
Should be: You _can't_ be without ethics.
Sorry!
[...]
Regards Matthias-Christian
The point of "free software" versus "open source" is IMO largely moot in practice - one implies the other. That said, it's a political reality for some. This document was fun to write:
http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/opensource.html
The Mozilla project had people who were interested in it because it was Open Source, and people who were interested in it because it was Free Software. (I was one of the latter. I started bug-testing it in mid-2000 not because it was good - it wasn't, it was bloated and had more bugs than working bits - but because it was *important*.) The above text looks simple, but had to satisfy those of each allegiance who believed their view of FS/OSS was *right* and the other was *misguided*. As a free software partisan, I was most amused that the "open source" texts I found to link to hammered home the point of "freedom, freedom, freedom" ;-)
- d.
Hello,
Please stop fighting, this is nowhere getting useful. Please, cease all arguments. An endless discussion will never set things clear and will eat everybody's time. Every time somebody makes a statement some other comes with "slightly" different opinion, trying to make himself heard. I believe we can all agree we can not achieve consensus (agreement) on this matter here. This is not what I intended. I wanted to set some things clear in my personal philosophy, not everybody's. It seems that instead I have brought the Trojan horse inside the city. Thanks for trying to clear things out. Sorry for bringing this up.
Bye for now,
Bogdan
Bogdan Bivolaru bogdan.bivolaru@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Hi,
Please stop fighting, this is nowhere getting useful. Please, cease all arguments. An endless discussion will never set things clear and will eat everybody's time. Every time somebody makes a statement some other comes with "slightly" different opinion, trying to make himself heard. I believe we can all agree we can not achieve consensus (agreement) on this matter here.
In the end there will be a consensus, you just have to define your goals. The definition of your goals depends finally on the basic values and convictions you have. If you don't agree on this basic ethical questions, I don't think there will be a consensus. There just one problem with this values: You basically have to experience them.
I think people can attain the best possible solution if they make some basic agreements. If there's a conflict between this basic agreements, you end up in an endless discussion which may convince nobody.
[...] Bye for now,
Bogdan
Regards Matthias-Christian
-- "The best way to predict the future is to invent it.", 1971, Alan Kay: http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html
Great quotation!