Since the conclusion of the Browser Wars between Netscape and Microsoft, there has been a schism in the community of developers sometimes referred to as the “open source” community, and sometimes as the “free software” community. The split is over exactly the ambiguity just raised in referencing this community: should the community of developers adopt the name and, presumably, philosophy of “open source” or “free software”? Since, by its nature, the community is highly decentralized, this issue will remain unresolved for the indefinite future.
On one side, the Free Software Foundation declares that it is morally imperative that each user of a piece of software have four rights outlined on one of their websites, gnu.org:
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.
The stance of the FSF is strong and flies in the face of recent interpretation of intellectual property law. More and more recently our industrial and legal regimes have favored absolute control for the creator over their property. The GNU General Public License (GPL) twists this strong control back on itself, by obligating users of the software to let their changes be made available. To be clear, the FSF does not believe that any vendor who distributes software should be able to lock users in and continue to charge for their service. The point of software being free is to put the users in control of what directions their software takes.
The Open Source Initiative, on the other hand, is about using the networked, peer-production model that free software had created, simply because they believe that the open source development model produces superior products. As stated on their web site at opensource.org:
We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds .... We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. "Open source," contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with.
The open source movement attempts to jettison the moral and political baggage that the free software movement feels is essential and not superfluous. They do not seek to remedy a moral crisis in proprietary systems. They may believe that free or open source software is more democratic by nature, but they do find it necessary or effective to make those statements. As such, the FSF and Richard Stallman, the founder of the FSF and father of the entire model, have chosen to discourage the use of the term open source and promote a higher moral ground.
To contrast the two ideas in a nutshell, open source is about network information economies, peer-production, and efficiently distributing labor, while free software is about making computing more democratic, and freeing software from corporations whose only concern is profit.
No comments:
Post a Comment