[H-GEN] Open Source Software [LONG]
Anthony Towns
aj at azure.humbug.org.au
Sat Feb 21 12:51:21 EST 1998
Well, while we weren't watching [0] RMS (Richard Stallman, of GNU and
FSF fame) has changed his stance on the "Open Source Software" name
change.
The following three messages from gnu.misc.discuss sum up the
intelligent part of the discussion for me, albeit by no means all of
it. [1]
Those who are interested in open source software, whatever you may
choose to call it will probably want to look through sites such as
<http://www.open-source.org/>, <http://heorot.cks.com> and old
favourites like <http://www.fsf.org/>.
Cheers,
aj
[0] Spontaneous alliteration! How, you ask, is this possible? Three
words: Four. A. M.
[1] The remainder was mostly, ``Hey, why don't we call it something
foreign, like "Software libre"'', which didn't seem to get taken
seriously.
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:40:19 -0700
Message-ID: <199802160840.BAA14937 at santafe.santafe.edu>
From: rms at santafe.edu (Richard Stallman)
Subject: It's Still Free Software
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
It's Still Free Software
There is a move to switch to the term "open source software" instead
of "free software". While free software by any other name would give
you the same freedom, it does make a difference which name we use.
This article describes the two reasons that have been offered for the
change, and explains why in both respects it is better to stick with
"free software".
* Ambiguity
The term "free software" has an ambiguity problem: an unintended
meaning, "Software you can get for zero price," fits the term just as
well as the intended meaning of software which gives the user certain
freedoms. We address this problem by publishing a more complete
definition (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), but this
is only a partial solution; it cannot completely eliminate the
problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better.
But nobody has found an unambiguously correct alternative for "free
software" in English. (Some langauges, such as French and Spanish,
provide obvious clear terms.) Every proposed replacement for "free
software" has the same kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this
includes "open source". Where "free software" has multiple meanings,
not just the intended one, "open source" has just one natural meaning,
and it is not the intended one.
The obvious meaning for "open source" is "You can get the source
code." This category is distinctly not the same as free software. It
includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as
Xv, and even non-free programs such as Qt.
Of course, it is possible to address this by publishing a precise
definition for the term, just as we do now for "free software." The
people using "open source" plan to do just that. But this partial
solution is only partially effective no matter which term we apply it
to. For free software, we have to teach people to use one meaning
rather than another which fits the words equally well. For open
source, we would have to teach them to use a meaning which does not
fit at all.
The semantic problem is real, but switching to "open source" makes it
bigger, not smaller.
* Fear of Freedom
The main argument for the term "open source" is that "free software"
makes some people uneasy. That's true: talking about freedom, about
ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, can
trigger discomfort. This asks people to think about things they might
rather keep out of mind. It does not follow that society would be
better off if we stop talking about these things.
Years ago, free software developers noticed this discomfort reaction,
and some started exploring an approach for avoiding it. They figured
that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about
the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might
be able to "sell" the software more effectively to certain users,
especially business. The term "open source" is offered as a way of
doing more of this--a way to be "more acceptable to business".
This approach has proved effective, as far as it goes. Today many
people are switching to free software for purely practical reasons.
But that isn't all we need to do! Attracting users to free software
is not the whole job, just the first step.
Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to
proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless
companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline?
Only if they have learned to value the freedom in free software for
its own sake. It is up to us to spread this idea--and in order to do
that, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of the "keep
quiet" approach is useful for the community, but we must have plenty
of freedom talk too.
At present, we have plenty of "keep quiet", but not enough freedom
talk. Most people involved with free software say little about
freedom--usually because they seek to be "more acceptable to
business". Software distributors especially show this pattern.
Several operating system distributions are based on free systems with
proprietary programs added; one of them, SuSe Linux, is chock full of
proprietary software, and is carefully designed to make it hard to see
the difference.
We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software
users--failing to teach them about freedom and our community as fast
as they enter it. This is why non-free software such as Qt and SuSe
finds such fertile ground. To stop using the word "free" is the
opposite of what we need. We need more, not less, talk about freedom.
Let's hope that those using the term "open source" will succeed in
bringing more users into our community; but if they do, the rest of us
will have to work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those
users' attention. We have to say, "Free software gives you
freedom!"--more and louder than ever before.
Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help. The
GNU project will stick to the term "free software", and I hope that
most of you will too.
------- End of forwarded message -------
------- Start of forwarded message -------
From: bruce at pixar.com (Bruce Perens)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: It's Still Free Software
Date: 16 Feb 1998 22:15:22 GMT
Message-ID: <6cadpq$l4m$1 at atlantis.pixar.com>
References: <199802160840.BAA14937 at santafe.santafe.edu>
Richard Stallman
> For free software, we have to teach people to use one meaning
> rather than another which fits the words equally well. For open
> source, we would have to teach them to use a meaning which does not
> fit at all.
Of course Richard and I have discussed this at length in private.
In general I support Richard's points. Open Source is just a marketing
program for Free Software, it doesn't mean the Free Software concept has
to change, or that you can no longer use the Free Software name. I am
specificaly aiming at a market segment that we have done a very poor job
of attracting to Free Software so far. That market segment is very
important, and they are not going away. We have to do something about
this, unless you want Microsoft to own all software.
John Gilmore commented that Cygnus had looked for other words for Free
Software a few years ago, and they didn't find any better ones. I agree
that "Open Source" does not describe the concept. I despair of ever
describing a concept in two words. In the S.F. Bay area I drive by a
billboard every day that offers "Free Software", but of course it's not
our kind of Free Software. I decided to trademark the term "Open Source"
and require that software fit the Open Source Definition to use the
trademark. This is less than perfect, but it's the best I could do. I
honestly think we have as much chance of getting the world to accept
our meaning of "Free Software" as we have of getting them to accept our
meaning of "Hacker". While I would not have you stop trying, we can not
report much progress, can we? So let's try re-marketing it.
> The main argument for the term "open source" is that "free software"
> makes some people uneasy. That's true: talking about freedom, about
> ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, can
> trigger discomfort. This asks people to think about things they might
> rather keep out of mind. It does not follow that society would be
> better off if we stop talking about these things.
I figure that if people accept Open Source for their own pragmatic
reasons, and it works for them, we will gain them as ideological
converts. I became a big supporter of the Free Software movement
because of my _experience_ with Linux, not because I accepted the idea
before I saw it work. We will convert them only if we can show we are
better than anything else in the market.
> Several operating system distributions are based on free systems with
> proprietary programs added; one of them, SuSe Linux, is chock full of
> proprietary software, and is carefully designed to make it hard to see
> the difference.
We should rate these systems on the Open Source web site, and point out
to the users why it is important to keep the systems open in our literature.
As far as ratings go, for example, Debian is 100% Open Source, anything
that doesn't comply with the Open Source Definition is segregated from the
rest of the system and not distributed on our Official CD set. Red Hat has
a policy of applying the GPL or LGPL to anything they write, and they have
a 100% open source product, although that is not their main product. Their
main product has a few proprietary programs. Caldera has a mix of Open
Source and proprietary code, but they have been very good about bringing
some products (COAS, Willows TWIN) into Open Source. SuSe? We don't have
much good to say at the moment, but hopefully that will change.
If the user has no reason not to use a proprietary product like SuSe,
it is because we have failed in our mission. We have failed to promote
our ideas, or we have failed to make the best system, which is absolutely
necessary to support our ideas. This is where we are now. We have to try
harder.
I have been instrumental in fighting efforts to make Linux dependent on
proprietary elements. One example is the work I've done to get people to
support GNOME rather than KDE/Qt, another is my work in building Debian
and defining Debian's policies, which became the Open Source Definition.
I don't expect that my involvement in Open Source will reduce what I do
for Free Software.
Thanks
Bruce
--
--
"A Bug's Life", coming to a theater near you! Opens November 14, 1998.
Woody and Buzz return winter 1999, in "Toy Story II".
------- End of forwarded message -------
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: rsmith at netcom.com (Richard S. Smith)
Subject: Re: It's Still Free Software
Message-ID: <rsmithEoo34A.CwD at netcom.com>
References: <199802160840.BAA14937 at santafe.santafe.edu> <6cadpq$l4m$1 at atlantis.pixar.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 07:50:33 GMT
Bruce Perens (bruce at pixar.com) wrote:
: Of course Richard and I have discussed this at length in private.
: In general I support Richard's points. Open Source is just a marketing
: program for Free Software, it doesn't mean the Free Software concept has
: to change, or that you can no longer use the Free Software name. I am
: specificaly aiming at a market segment that we have done a very poor job
: of attracting to Free Software so far. That market segment is very
: important, and they are not going away. We have to do something about
: this, unless you want Microsoft to own all software.
Bruce, I think you and Eric Raymond are on to something important
here. If Netscape does, in fact, release a browser with a GPL-style
license, all of us in the Free Software community will suddenly feel
as if an 800-pound gorilla just sat down in our living room. Wussy
but important publications like Information Week, the San Jose Mercury
News and maybe even (gasp!) The Wall Street Journal will start writing
articles examining what the Free Software concept is and what it
means.
It would be a very good idea for us to have a good PR mechanism in
place before this happens, and if the "Open Source" movement wants to
take on this job, more power to 'em.
However, I also applaud RMS for continuing to fly the flag of Free
Software. There was an excellent editorial in the Linux Journal last
year which compared the various entities in the Free Software
community (FSF, GNU, Linux, Debian, etc.) to political parties in a
European country like Italy, where the left-leaning groups range from
the moderately liberal to full-blooded Communists.
Although I understand the reasoning, I see no reason for RMS to soften
his left-wing stance for the overall sake of "the movement". If the
"Open Software" group wants to set up a "platform" similar to the FSF,
but take a more "centrist" position, then let them form their own
party, so to speak.
It may also be a good idea give yourselves a real legal name, like the
"Open Source Foundation". I'd be willing to bet that the Open Group
folks would even give up the "osf.org" domain if you asked them
nicely. ;-)
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard S. Smith / rsmith at netcom.com / http://www.idiom.com/~rss |
| Progress DBMS Stuff: http://www.idiom.com/~rss/progress-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
------- End of forwarded message -------
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``It's not a vision, or a fear. It's just a thought.''
----------------------- HUMBUG General List --------------------------------
echo "unsubscribe general" | mail majordomo at humbug.org.au # To Unsubscribe
More information about the General
mailing list