OSCON Images, Day 4 - O'Reilly Media
Topic 21: The Uneasy Alliance: Free Software vs Open Source
Analyse both free software and open source approach in your blog. If you prefer one, provide your arguments.
Before analyzing the difference between free software and open source software, it is important to note that free software is not the same as freeware, software available at zero price. Though the definition of freeware covers both proprietary and closed source software that is available for use at no cost as well as free and open source software, in common usage it tends to refer more often to proprietary and closed source software that is available for use at no cost. Closed source software is a software distributed without its source code.
The rest is a bit more complicated. There are two different movements, free software movement (Richard Stallman) and the open source movement (Bruce Perens), that can be viewed as two political camps within the same, free software community. There are very few cases of software that is free software but is not open source software, and vice versa. The difference in the terms is where they place the emphasis. Free software is defined in terms of giving the user freedom. This reflects the goal of the free software movement. According to Richard Stallman, "When we call software "free", we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of "free speech", not "free beer"." Open source highlights that the source code is viewable to all. Proponents of the term usually emphasize the quality of the software and how this is caused by the development models which are possible and popular among free and open source software projects. It focuses on technology rather than ethics. As Richard Stallman puts it, "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement."
Some free software advocates use the term Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) as an inclusive compromise, drawing on both philosophies to bring both free software advocates and open source software advocates together to work on projects with more cohesion. Some users believe that a compromise term encompassing both aspects is ideal, to promote both the user's freedom with the software and also to promote the perceived superiority of an open source development model. Indeed, it seems of little importance to anyone else apart from the proponents of these two sides. What we should really consider important is the availability of source code as explained by Chris Pirillo in the video I embedded in my previous post. There is a huge reason why open is better than just free, but in his case he was referring to freeware (closed software available at no cost) rather than free software.
The four essential freedoms, specifically freedoms 1 and 3, that define free software require source code to be available, because studying and modifying software without its source code is highly impractical. Studying and modifying software in order to improve it (and make it better) with the help of collaborative development is what both movements and their proponents should strive for, rather than arguing whether the ethical or technological approach is more appropriate. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits, is a very whole-souled goal of the free software movement. On the other hand, the open source philosophy is perhaps a bit more constructive as it focuses on the strengths of peer-to-peer development while also spreading the freedom to use, study, change, and improve software through the availability of its source code. However, while open source may have a lot of good stuff going for it, it does not protect the fundamental freedoms in a way that free software advocates do. I think it is fundamentally important to provide a better understanding of both movements and their benefits, without having to wage consequently a war against one another.
One thing that I find quite contradictional is that free software licences actually place a restriction that open source does not. Open source licenses do not restrict redistribution of identical or modified copies. Free software licenses place the restriction that redistribution must be under a free software license. This leads to an asymmetric incompatibility between free software and open source: while it is possible to use open source code in free software projects (e.g., for the Linux Operating System to copy drivers from FreeBsd), the inverse is not allowed. Isn't this a violation of freedom?
Another question is whether programmers should deserve or ask for rewards for their creativity. Stallman says that this is where people get the misconception of "free". There is no wrong in requesting rewards for their works. Restricting and controlling the user's decisions on use is the actual violation of freedom. Stallman defends that in some cases, monetary incentive is not necessary for motivation since the pleasure in expressing creativity is a reward in itself.
Free vs open: what's the difference?
Paul Hudson explores the gap between the philosophies on TechRadar.
Topic 22: Creative Commons and Free Content Models
No comments:
Post a Comment