
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>


<p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects
the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential freedoms</a>:

<p>These freedoms are vitally important.  They are essential, not just
promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation.  They 
become even more important as our culture and life activities are 
free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.</p>

<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software;
students to use the free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux 
operating system</a>.  Most of these users, however, have never heard of 
software community, because nowadays this system and community are more 
different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>

<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
of the essential components of the system and designed
the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) 
to release them under—a license designed specifically to protect 
freedom for all users of a program.</p>

<p>Not all of the users and developers of free software
of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in
the name of “open source.”  The term was originally
proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free
software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical
views quite different from those of the free software movement.</p>

<p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a
“marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal
to business executives by highlighting the software's practical
not like to hear.  Other supporters flatly rejected the free software
movement's ethical and social values.  Whichever their views, when
campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those
values.  The term “open source” quickly became associated
with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as
making or having powerful, reliable software.  Most of the supporters

<p>Nearly all open source software is free software.  The

<p>The two terms
describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for
views based on fundamentally different values.  Open source is a
development methodology; free software is a social movement.  For the
free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
because only free software respects
essential respect for the users' freedom.  By contrast,
software “better”—in a practical sense only.  It
says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical
problem at hand.  For  Most discussion of “open source” pays no
a <a href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">
typical example</a>.</p>

<p>For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a

<p>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software, 
software (<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">or nearly so</a>), 
essential to speak of “free software.”</p>

<p>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source
mislabeled as open source supporters.</p>

<h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source</h3>

<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than
software source code would qualify as open source.  Nearly all open
because its license does not allow making a modified version and using
it privately.  Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.</p>

<p>Second, and more important in practice, many products containing
computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users
from installing different executables; only one privileged company can
capabilities.  We call these devices “tyrants”, and the
practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo)
executable is nonfree.</p>

<p>The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are
unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux
Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux.</p>

<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
“Open Source”</h3>

<p>The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation:
an unintended meaning, “software you can get
meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.”
We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software,
it didn't present other problems.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of
their own.  We've looked at many that people have
suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that switching
do not recognize it at all.)  Every proposed replacement for
“free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and 
this includes “open source software.”</p>

<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">official href="https://opensource.org/osd">official definition of
“open source software”</a> (which is published by the Open
Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived
it is a little looser in some respects, so the open source people have
accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive.
Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our
criterion also considers whether a device will let you <em>run</em>
your modified version of the program. respects.  Nonetheless, their definition
agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>

<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
software”—and the one most people seem to think it
criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much
weaker also than the official definition of open source.  It includes
many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>

<p>Since that the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
misunderstand the term.  According to writer Neal Stephenson,
“Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply,
think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the
“official” official
definition.  I think he simply applied the conventions of the English
language to come up with a meaning for the term.  The state <a 
of Kansas Kansas</a> published a similar definition:
<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
that page is no longer available. --> “Make use of
is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing
agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that

<p>The <i>New York
has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
ran an article that stretches stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers
have practiced for decades.</p>

<p>The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment
are <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published
without a patent</a>.  Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable
contributions to society, but the term “source code” does
not pertain to them.</p>

<p>Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their
official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective
source” has only one natural meaning, which is different from
explain and justify its official definition.  That makes for worse 

<p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea
accompany another misunderstanding that “free software”
open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.</p> licenses.  There
are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software
licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.</p>

<p>The term “open source” has been further stretched by
its application to other activities, such as government, education,
criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent.  The only
thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite
“participatory”.</p> “participatory” or “transparent”, or
less than that.  At worst, it
become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</p>

<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always</h3>

<p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite
this and used it to criticize the entire left.</p>

<p>Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our
disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical
many cases to the same practical behavior—such as developing
free software.</p>

<p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open
source camp often work together on practical projects such as software
development.  It is remarkable that such different philosophical views
can so often motivate different people to participate in the same
projects.  Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally
different views lead to very different actions.</p>

<p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and
redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable.
But this is not guaranteed.  Developers of proprietary software are
not necessarily incompetent.  Sometimes they produce a program that
freedom.   Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will
react very differently to that.</p>

<p>A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by
schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.</p>

<p>The free software activist will say, “Your program is very
Instead  I
maintain and defend it.</p>

<h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3>

<p>The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes
If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.</p>

<p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects
users?  Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting,
and reliability that they are harder to remove.  Malicious features,
imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open
source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.</p>

<p>Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for
individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
them.  This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
Management (DRM) (see <a
href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is
the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.</p>

<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source
of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by
allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and
reliable software for restricting users like you.  The software would then 
be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>

<p>This software might be open source and use the open
source development model, but it won't be free software since it
open source development model succeeds in making this software more
powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even

<h3>Fear of Freedom</h3>

<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source
camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as
convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer
does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.</p>

<p>That is, however, what the leaders of open source
freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of
software more effectively to certain users, especially business.</p>

<p>When open source proponents talk about anything deeper than that,
morally required, presumes that distributing proprietary software
without source code is morally legitimate.</p>

<p>This approach has proved effective, in its own terms.  The rhetoric
of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use,
and even develop, free software, which has extended our
community—but only at the superficial, practical level.  The
philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes
understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many
way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.</p>

<p>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, some even offering copies
rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free
that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.</p>

<p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have.  Most people
involved with free software, especially its distributors, say little about 
freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to 
business.” Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add 
consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.</p>

<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux
distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does
The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk
this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.</p>

<h3>“FLOSS” and “FOSS”</h3>

<p> The terms “FLOSS” and “FOSS” are used to
be <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"> neutral between free
software and open source</a>.  If neutrality is your goal,
term isn't the way.  Standing up for freedom entails showing people
your support for freedom.</p>

<h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3>

<p>“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare.
“Free software” and “open source” are
compete for the same conceptual slot.  When people become habituated
to their grasping the free software movement's philosophy and thinking
before they recognize that we stand for something <em>else</em>.
Any activity that promotes the word “open” tends to
extend the curtain that hides the ideas of the free software

<p>Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work
plenty of other good activities which call themselves
“free” or “libre.” Each contribution to those
projects to choose from, why not choose one which does extra good?</p>


<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community,
we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue
“open source,” you help our campaign.</p> cause.</p>


<!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
Joe Barr's article, 
<a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">“Live and
let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
Lakhani and Wolf's <a href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">paper 
paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a 
considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be 




<div id="footer">
<div class="unprintable">

<br />
Please send broken  Broken links and other

        replace it with the translation of these two:

        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard

        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
        our web pages, see <a
        README</a>. -->

Please see the <a
README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
of this article.</p>

<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016 Richard Stallman
<br />
This Stallman</p>




<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2016/07/27 04:59:14 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
<!-- with the webmasters first. --> 