
Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software - octopus
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html?
======
aniket_ray
I'm not a big fan on GPL anymore.

When I create some software I prefer the user of my software to have all
freedoms including the freedom to embed it in closed source software.

~~~
SwellJoe
And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or
distributes it. So, I use GPL.

Amazing how people can have different priorities and different beliefs. (And,
amazing how one can abuse the word "free" or "open" in either case to mean two
very different things.)

~~~
dwc
> And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or
> distributes it. So, I use GPL.

BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken,
extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the
original contribution remains open.

I think that what you object to is that someone can take your code and make
money using it in a closed source project, perhaps modifying it in the
process. If that makes you unhappy then GPL will serve your desires better.

But saying a BSD license won't keep _your_ code open is not true. It may seem
like a nit, but it's one that matters.

~~~
wvenable
It depends on how you define "open". For Stallman, one of the main goals of
free software is the ability to get into your software and be able to fix bugs
and port it to other platforms -- it all started with RMS getting stuck with a
proprietary printer driver.

All that BSD code that's been taken, extended, modified and used in
proprietary products is no longer open. You can't get into OS X and fix bugs
or port it to another platform. So even if the original code is still open,
other distributions of that same code are not.

~~~
dwc
You are correct: the original code (and ongoing work based on it) is still
open, and Apple, et al, versions are not.

This is fine. First and most importantly, because the desire to share code
with BSD comes with no strings attached. It's just the desire to share. You
don't have to have the same beliefs and priorities as I do in order to use my
code. I believe in freedom enough to give you _all_ the freedoms to do as you
like with my code, and you don't have to behave in ways I see as good.

Secondly, if Apple were unable to use BSD code then what would happen? They
would go completely proprietary, that's what. For them the alternative is not
between BSD and GPL! Would the user be better served, or worse? As it stands,
Apple contributes some things back to open/free projects, and a big part of
that is due to their ties to BSD code.

Thirdly, with OS X as it is, or if Apple had not taken BSD code, or Apple did
not even exist, would a user be more able or less able to run FreeBSD? No. Or
GNU/Linux? Again, no.

Stallman and the FSF think that they're making a difference with licenses. But
I think the truth may be that it's not the license that's really the movement.
The movement is collaboration on a global scale and sharing code and making
cool things for everyone to use. The licenses do not drive this. In the end we
have to make sure that licenses serve our purpose rather than the other way
around.

~~~
wvenable
> This is fine.

But not for RMS since it doesn't address the founding concern of the FSF! You
sort of glossed over that. If you write BSD code, and it gets put into OS X,
your ability to tinker with _your own code_ in that context is gone.

I don't think you can clearly claim one license here is more free than the
other -- they're both securing different kinds of freedom.

~~~
dwc
If I give away my code I do not demand that others let me poke at what they
make with it, and I don't demand that they let their users poke at it. I still
have my own code. This is fine with me. Nothing, _absolutely nothing_ that
Apple does with my code diminishes what _I_ or _anyone else_ can do with my
code. When I share my code, I really share it for whatever purpose and to
anyone. This is giving the fullest amount of freedom to any and every
recipient of my code. Any possible restrictions I would place on them could
only make it less free.

I understand that it's _not_ fine with RMS and the FSF. And that's ok, because
that's their point of view and plenty of other people feel the same way, and
there should be a license for such people to use.

I understand that my views are not in line with the founding concerns of the
FSF. But I never claimed they were. This is the very problem. The FSF has
confused a generation of hackers into thinking that Freedom is the FSF and
that the FSF is Freedom. They're not different kinds of freedom. The FSF
promotes guaranteeing certain rights of anyone using software, where BSD is
about freedom. You can believe in what the FSF is trying to do, and you can
use the GPL to help get there! That's ok. It just bugs me about the "free"
thing because it's not so true as the FSF would like you to think.

~~~
wvenable
> I still have my own code.

Actually, it doesn't matter what license you use -- you'll always have your
own code.

> Any possible restrictions I would place on them could only make it less
> free.

One person's restriction is another person's allowance. The GPL gives end
users and developers a number of rights that they don't normally get with
copyrighted works. BSD doesn't change the normal copyright rights of end users
at all. So for some users in some situations, the GPL is more free than
copyright, and by extension, the BSD license as well.

------
moron4hire
All I know is that the proponents of Free Software are constantly trying to
tell me what to think and tell me what my ideals should be, whereas just-
plain-Open-Sourcers are happy enough to see that I'm using their software,
regardless of what I do with it.

------
btilly
Free software offers the end user benefits that the end user only rarely
understands or appreciates.

Open source offers developers benefits that lots of developers understand and
appreciate.

Therefore open source is a _much_ better marketing tactic. (Which is exactly
what it was designed to be.)

~~~
prodigal_erik
Anyone who's ever taken their car to an independent mechanic (rather than back
to the dealer) ought to understand a key end user benefit of free software:
you aren't limited by the interests of its creator. I'm confused that nobody
seems to get this.

~~~
bad_user
I get it, but it is also a bad analogy.

Cars can't be repaired with a quick update over the wire.

------
w1ntermute
Does it bother anyone else that people circumvent the dupe-prevention code on
HN by adding a CGI question mark to the end of the URL?

This link was submitted quite a while ago[0] without the question mark, and it
clearly didn't gain a lot of traction, so in this case it was a good idea to
resubmit it. However, it seems wrong that the dupe-prevention code isn't more
sophisticated.

0: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2000239>

------
tzs
My problem with Free Software as opposed to Open Source is that Free Software
people have a greater tendency to end up doing things like this:

[http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.distributions.gnu-
linux-...](http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.distributions.gnu-linux-
libre/826)

(The whole thread, not just the specific post linked to).

~~~
tzs
OK, my other problem with Free Software is when Free Software proponents try
to tell me that GPL is more free than BSD because GPL stops the software from
becoming part of non-free software.

It's like saying people in the US are more free than those in the EU, because
the US restricts travel to non-free Cuba.

~~~
archangel_one
It's not really. The concept of a derived work does not apply well to
countries, but if it did that wouldn't be an example of it. What you're
describing sounds more like a Free software web browser that would only
communicate with Free web servers, which of course isn't what the GPL says at
all.

------
schallis
Unfortunately, "Open Source" is easier to market than "Free Software". The
real benefits of true free software evidence themselves in the end and that's
what counts, not what you call it.

Edit: It is however important to distinguish between free software and thinly
veiled proprietary software marketed as Open Source.

~~~
dasil003
What about distinguishing between non-free, but substantially open software
(measured by ease of patch submission) vs proprietary software with the
occasional code dump?

------
krschultz
With a BSD or Apache license you are giving your project away for anyone to
use how they see fit.

With GPL you are giving your project away only to those willing to work with
you on improving it.

The arguments back and forth are so tiresome when they don't recognize that
sometimes one license makes a lot of sense and sometimes the other license
makes a lot of sense. There will never be one license to rule them all.

~~~
jarin
Exactly, I've always argued that Free Software is best for infrastructure and
developer tools, and Open Source is best for everything else (like libraries
for end user software).

------
cookiecaper
Stallman's insistence on unlimited and unrestricted redistribution at a price
not exceeding cost is the critical flaw with the free software movement. While
I agree that this is good and should be encouraged where possible, if there
were a license or some support for persons that allowed access to and
modification of the code and redistribution of the code only to persons who
were appropriately licensed by the copyright owner, then I think we'd have a
much better ecosystem here.

Everyone would weld the hoods of their cars shut if leaving it open meant they
had to give the car away for free. Since it doesn't, most people are free to
access the internals of their vehicles and do whatever they like. The same
principle should apply to software -- if we make it reasonably easy for people
to leave the hood open but still make some money, there'd be more freedom to
go around for everyone.

~~~
Omega191
This is comparing apples to oranges; you don't lose the possession of software
when you share it.

~~~
cookiecaper
You do lose the ability to make money off of software licenses when you
include a stipulation that every recipient is free to redistribute your
software's source as far and as much as possible at a price not exceeding the
cost of the reproduction and distribution of the code, and that he is free to
resell binaries of said software at any price. As we see with RHEL, if you try
to do so, something like CentOS will come in and spoil the party.

There are times when this kind of sharing is good, but I believe if we were
interested less in economic zealotry and more interested in individual freedom
to control the software that runs on one's computer, we'd see a lot more
people distributing source code. That would ultimately produce a net increase
in freedom for computer users, even if the rules say you can only share
modifications with people that have a rightful license.

Those that want to license under a copyleft are by all means free to do so,
but we shouldn't exclude people that would be willing to distribute source
code so that their users can control the program themselves, but who are not
willing to switch to a support or subscription based business model. You can't
make much significant money selling GPL'd software, you only make money by
selling support contracts to BigCo. And that model is not applicable to
everyone, even if it works out OK for database systems and Linux
distributions.

Whether it's simple to copy or not, it's not simple to implement or design,
and implementers and designers should be compensated even if their work can be
reproduced at minimal cost after its initial production and release. A car's
physical properties that make it much more difficult to copy have nothing to
do with whether the hoods should be opened or shut, and whether rightful
owners should be free to tinker around inside.

------
wingo
I read these comments and think that this article wasn't directed at HN
readers; it was directed at free software people.

------
motters
I tend to use GPL for fairly pragmatic reasons. If I've written some software
- typically voluntarily and without payment - and put it out there for others
to use then I would rather that the code remain in the public domain where
improvements can be made which benefit everyone, including the original
author.

~~~
eps
Just curious - how many actual improvements were made to your GPL'd software
and how many of these in your opinion would have _not_ been made public if the
license was different (say, BSD)?

~~~
motters
It's always difficult to know exactly what people do with the software once
it's out there "in the wild". Many of my projects are just curiosities with no
other contributors, but a few have had many improvements submitted - some of
them quite substantial. My guess is that if the GPL projects used BSD this
would not make a big difference, but it might limit the ability to combine my
own code with other GPL'd algorithms. The predominance of GPL as a FOSS
license means that adopting it basically maximises the potential usefulness of
the code, and since IANAL I'm not really qualified to judge compatibility
between different sorts of licenses.

------
jaekwon
When Stallman says "free software is an ethical imperative, because only free
software respects the users' freedom", is he saying that I don't have the
freedom to create closed source software for my own benefit? Is he saying that
I'm not respecting the end user's freedom by distributing closed source
services?

With all due respect Mr Stallman, given those conditions I may not want to
code at all.

~~~
archangel_one
You can't create closed source software for yourself - you have the source
code, because you wrote it! But if you distribute that software to someone
else, yes he holds that it is morally wrong to deprive them of certain rights,
eg. the right to modify it for their own purposes.

Given his apparent stance on non-Free software, I suspect he is not concerned
if you choose not to write some. He certainly wouldn't have used it in the
first place.

------
gte910h
Free software people continually miss the value of just letting people use
their stuff to do whatever.

Letting people put back patches if they want to, but otherwise do what the
hell they feel like is powerful, useful and practical for many more
applications than the GPL et al licenses.

Some of us like sharing, but also like selling software and not giving away
the source.

------
EGreg
If they only called it Liberating Software, they wouldn't have had this
happen. After all, open source software is also free (as in, costs nothing).
But liberating software sounds like it confers freedom on the person --
actually liberating them.

Remember, branding is important.

~~~
billswift
Open source (as in BSD, MIT, WTFPL) are more liberating than "Free Software"
(GPL). They greatly enlarge your opportunities in how you use the software.

~~~
mvalle
Free Software is defined as software released under a license that follows the
definition of Free Software ( <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html> ).

BSD, MIT and WTFPL are all on the list of officially verified Free Software
licenses: <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html> and are thus "Free
Software".

Open Source, similarly, is defined as software released under a license that
follows the definition of Open Source Software (
<http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd> ). The OSI also has a list of approved
licenses: <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical>

------
dools
if the term free is ambiguous, why not just call it Freedom Software? I
suppose may have the unfortunate side effect of being co-opted by patriotic
zealots :)

~~~
archangel_one
He's said elsewhere that "Freedom Software" was an existing trademark.

------
hasenj
Or, why Free Software misses the point of Open Source :)

Open Source is about the developers. Free Software is about the end users (or,
it's supposed to be).

In reality, Free Software ends up being useful only for programmers, hackers,
technical people, and well, institutions which require programmers, hackers
and technical people to run and grow their infrastructure (such as
Universities and Governments).

Free Software (as an ideology) offers nothing to the typical end user of, say,
the iPhone. It offers a lot to Apple (the iPhone makers).

~~~
SwellJoe
"Open Source is about the developers. Free Software is about the end users
(or, it's supposed to be)."

In an ideal world, the user and the developer are one in the same.

I don't mean everyone who uses a piece of software should have to know the
code intimately; merely that they should have the freedom to see it, modify it
and learn from it, should the need or desire arise. The power of the Free
Software movement is that it created an entire generation of users who are
also developers. Most of the people here at HN have Free and Open Source
software to thank for their programming skills. You're mostly too young to
remember the world in which code was closed, by default, and you had to learn
without the benefit of an infinite variety of examples to peruse.

"Free Software (as an ideology) offers nothing to the typical end user of,
say, the iPhone."

Which is why it is important to educate the next generation of the importance
of Free Software (or Open Source, though having an ideology to back it might
not be such a bad things), so that the rate of software advancement and
innovation continues to accelerate, and so that the gap between the technology
haves and have nots does not grow further and faster.

To dismiss the ideology, I think, is to dismiss the importance of a free
software culture; our Internet exists as it does today thanks to free
software.

Note that I'm not discussing licenses here, but the general culture of
software. If we have a culture of sharing, which RMS and the FSF has been
instrumental in creating (and the GPL was merely a part of that), we have a
culture in which young programmers can learn from the experienced, and a
culture in which barriers to entry are not as economic in nature.

I think it's worth teaching kids the value of a free software culture, and
working to keep that culture thriving going forward, despite the fact that
many major corporations have a vested interest in seeing free software
contained to the world of nerds and hackers.

~~~
hasenj
I respect FSF and RMS very much, and in fact I think if it weren't for them,
Unix would've died, and Linux wouldn't really take off, maybe even BSD
wouldn't have existed, and Mac wouldn't exist in the form we know it today
(that is, as a Unix based OS).

Having said that, RMS's ideology is not inherently good per se; it's somewhat
radical, but without the existence of radicalism, we would've ended up in a
world of proprietry only software. In other words, the Open Source movement's
"utopia" can't exist without RMS-like radicals who push strongly towards a
world of only free software.

As a result, we get an equilibrium where all the tools for development and
infrastructure are free/open-source, while end-user products are not always
free.

