Free software vs. open source
Sun Aug 17, 2008 15:19 (UTC -5)Over the past ten years, the term “open source” has found a place in the public consciousness. The idea got an early boost in 1998, when Netscape decided to release the source code of their flagship program, the Communicator suite, for others to improve upon. It seemed like a desperate business decision for a company that was about to be crushed by Microsoft. But the hard work that countless programmers, designers, and testers put into Netscape’s code has brought us the ever more popular Mozilla Firefox browser, which is now used by nearly 20% of web surfers. (Yes, I just said “web surfers.” Really puts you in the 1998 mood, doesn’t it?)
Nowadays, every software company announces that it’s open-sourcing this or that, always to the delight of the community. There’s a large and growing number of software developers and users who support the open source ideals. But what exactly are these ideals? How did they come about? What implications do they have?
The open source movement originated from the free software movement, which was founded by Richard Stallman. When Stallman became a computer programmer in the 1970s, it was customary for programmers around the world to share the source code for their programs so that other programmers could study and improve them. Stallman saw the good things that this atmosphere of cooperation created. But by the early 1980s, it became more common for companies to distribute proprietary software, which placed restrictions on the users’ ability to modify and redistribute the software for their own needs.
To combat the proliferation of software that kept its users “divided and helpless,” Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation in 1985. He codified the programmer community’s vanishing ethic in the Free Software Definition. According to this document, a program is called “free software” if it gives its users all of the following freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
- The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
- The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public so that the whole community benefits.
The free software movement grew slowly at first but became more popular as the the FSF’s GNU operating system, combined with the Linux kernel, found its way into server rooms and onto computer geeks’ desktops. The success of GNU/Linux, better known simply as Linux, had people fired up about free software. But some supporters differed from Stallman in several respects.
First, they didn’t like the development model that the FSF used for GNU. The FSF had a very authoritative role in the development process of its operating system, controlling which improvements it would accept from members of the community. Linus Torvalds, on the other hand, allowed a large community of programmers to guide the development of his Linux kernel, which is probably one reason why it became so popular. In addition, the younger supporters of free software, such as Torvalds himself, grew up in a world where proprietary software was commonplace. Unlike Stallman, they weren’t around to see their freedoms being taken away. They were more focused on the community aspect of software development than issues of freedom.
This led a group of free software supporters to create the Open Source Initiative and publish the Open Source Definition. Its requirements are similar enough that almost all open source software is free software and vice versa. The OSI advocated the term “open source” to make free software more community-oriented and palatable to companies that might be afraid of the word “free.” Shortly thereafter, Netscape announced it would be open-sourcing Netscape Communicator, and the media ate it up. Open source stayed in the minds of the public in a way that free software never had.
Since then, the many people have moved to the term “open source” because they see it as less ambiguous than “free software.” But is it really? The FSF cites cases of various authorities assuming “open source” to mean “software for which the source code is available.” Those people clearly haven’t read the Open Source Definition, which extends “open source” beyond its literal meaning to describe the freedoms that users have with the source code. In fact, the definition begins, “Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.”
The term “free software” can be confusing because “free” can mean either “without cost” or “unrestrained.” But according to the FSF, “free software” is less ambiguous: one sense of the term captures the FSF’s intended meaning, but no sense of “open source” encompasses the OSI’s full meaning. The confusion over the meaning of “open source” means that companies can release code under licenses that allow the viewing of source code but little else, and some people will inevitably call it “open source.”
While the FSF and OSI seem to resent one another, they do work together because they basically have the same goal in common. It’s their ideologies that differ. When you talk about free/open source software, you might want to consider which side you’re really on. The FSF says that software should respect your freedom to do whatever you want with it. The OSI emphasizes its belief that the most valuable software has a community of users developing it.
If you haven’t been able to tell, I know which side I’m on. I support the free software movement, and I recognize that without freedom, there can be no community collaboration. But if you’re not sure, or if you want to stay neutral, you might like the increasingly popular term “free and open source software” (FOSS) or the even less ambiguous “free (libre) open source software” (FLOSS). In the meantime, you can browse the official sites of the FSF and OSI to get a feel for what their respective movements are about.
11 comments
#1 by anton kozlik: Sun Aug 17, 2008 20:10 (UTC -5)
Unfortunately, the “free” or “open source” movements that started in the 80s failed to respect the software developer who developed for limited niche markets with very expensive demands. One of my “major” products was purchased by one customer in a country and in spite of “dongles”, encryptions, etc. their “people” managed to break into the code and, in turn, sell copies of my software to the other 80 customers that existed in that country. (It was a $10,000 product) Yes, I knew that “encryption” systems, etc. would only be a deterrent but in this case, they even used our product name in their advertising and began to pursue customers in other countries. Their government did not support our argument that we at least owned a copyright to our name. Scratch that software product from our portfolio!
At the same time, universities and government customers expected “free” access to our software. We wouldn’t give it. I eventually got out of the business.
I liken it to the pharmaceutical industry where you can spend two or three years to develop a super “cure” and then a “movement” comes along and makes it possible for the world to get access to your formula for free for the “good of the mankind”. I believe the pharmaceutical people have done a hell of a lot better than an 80s software developer.
Back in the 80s our problem was that there were a lot of brilliant programmers emerging into the market but they didn’t have any practical experience in the “real world”. They wanted to get in, but didn’t want to pay for the privelege. So they resorted to piracy. Eventually the word “piracy” was replaced with “open source” and “progress” and programing operations like mine were treated miserably by the “intellectual computing community”. Our only consolation in the last 20 years is that we have met more “moral” people in the other fields we chose. We smile more often. We sleep at night. Our wealth is not measured in dollars.
Also, some of our “secrets” have remained “secrets”. Our only chuckle is that we are watching people attempting to solve some of the “sticky problems” for which we may have solutions. They will go with us to our graves.
#2 by Jordon: Sun Aug 17, 2008 20:35 (UTC -5)
It’s unfortunate that you lost a lot of money on the unauthorized use of your software. I don’t think that’s right. I guess it goes to show that when you give someone a computer and some software, they’re going to try to do whatever they want with it, legal or not.
People want to open up the hood (so to speak) of their computer and customize it to their needs, just as they would with any other machine. They should be able to do so. A computer program, after all, is just instructions for making a machine work a certain way. Why shouldn’t people control how their own machines work?
There’s still a lot of money to be made in developing proprietary software, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Many companies have made free software a part of their business model. And while I understand your frustration toward certain people who made you lose business, I wouldn’t feel proud of hoarding secrets that people could benefit from.
#3 by anton kozlik: Sun Aug 17, 2008 21:41 (UTC -5)
Jordan:
The business model you speak of was developed in “self defence” by large corporations which primarily achieved income for their principals by the hype that they created for the stock market or are you too young to remember the DOT DOM deaths? One of our customers was not so concerned with how well our software worked as how well it demonstrated because he wanted to make $20 million dollars before the product saw the light of day. He did. But he did it with a “flashier firm” than ours. Oh yes, the software didn’t work. He recently paid more than $10 million bail to get out of Rykers. Nice Guy!!!
The large corporations only employed these marketing plans because they had to and they wanted to see their shares perform better than their software. If you ask any of them they would not have preferred to do it that way.
With regard to “I wouldn’t feel proud of hoarding secrets that people could benefit from” I would ask you, “If you produced movies for a living would you give everybody a free showing because they could benefit from your movie?” or “When was the last time you went to a rock concert and it was free?” or “When did you get a free ride on an airline just because you needed to get to Chicago?”
In the 1980s we weren’t developing software to satisfy our egos. We did it to feed our families, pay rent, etc. etc. If we followed what I believe is your formula we would have “provided the world with benefits” while we “got our meals from the Salvation Army”!
Or, we could have pursued the “immoral” approach, hyped our software, made a fortune on the stock market and produced yet another inferior product. The 1980s were famous for hyped software products that didn’t work. (Did you ever use an odd numbered version of Windows?)
I can appreciate that you are in the educational stream. I would suggest that you demand a more comprehensive education from your institution. It would appear that the basics of marketing are being replaced by the “thrill” of creating great aps.
#4 by Jordon: Sun Aug 17, 2008 22:26 (UTC -5)
I’m not talking about giving away software without cost. Certain companies have done very well selling support for their Linux distributions or even the actual distributions themselves, either on the Internet or in a physical medium. Heck, some people would rather pay for software they can get for free because they think they’re getting something better. There’s money to be made at every corner.
I’m not suggesting that you could have put bread on the table with free software in the ’80s. It wasn’t at all an idea that companies were picking up on. But times have changed. Maybe some companies are supporting free software because they feel that they have to, but they’re all doing it because they know it can make them money.
With regards to your first comment, do you have evidence that open source originated as a new name for piracy?
I’m not being taught marketing; I’m being taught how to program computers. My views on free software come from my personal experience. I am young, and I have much to learn about many things. But this is what I think right now based on what I know so far.
#5 by anton kozlik: Sun Aug 17, 2008 23:20 (UTC -5)
Hi Jordan,
The definitions for Open Source software came about perhaps 15 years “after the fact”. The practice of the major customers (governments for instance) was to “demand” copies of your source code in case “you went out of business” and to “protect their investment”. Then, an “employee” would leave the department or corporation and go to “another” job which he most likely received because he “had access to a software solution” for his new employer. This I would term “piracy”. Even when we “installed hidden identifiers” in our source code, we were faced with a judicial system that “didn’t understand these newfangled machines”. And, employers were loath to force employees to sign “effective” non-disclosure agreements (another aspect that the judicial system was terrible at enforcing)
In regard to your own development, I commend you for your obvious enthusiasm and productivity. Please pardon an old timer if he appears to be giving you a hard time. He isn’t. Often, history gets rewritten as time evolves and in the process, some of the more disgusting “roots” fall through the cracks. For instance, back in the “old days” the computer attempted to change the way companies did their business in order to accommodate what the programmers could do (or comprehend). The horror stories are numerous. An old timers advice is that every project needs a “super user”, a concept which has fallen into disfavor by most software development fraternities. I hope they exist in your learning environment. Peace!
#6 by anton kozlik: Sun Aug 17, 2008 23:38 (UTC -5)
PS
I double checked with Wikipedia and found that our old definition of a superuser has now changed. Sorry for that.
In “the old days” a super user knew the “task” but was never a programmer. To use a car racing analogy, “He didn’t know a thing about how to build a car. His job was to drive it!”
#7 by Jordon: Mon Aug 18, 2008 08:05 (UTC -5)
It seems that piracy in such cases that you mention actually was piracy, which is regrettable. But the free software (and later, open source) enthusiasts didn’t want to have to be “pirates.” If it’s legal, it’s not piracy. That’s a fine distinction but an important one.
The roots of the free software and open source movements go back to the days before proprietary code was commonplace. The champions of those movements weren’t breaking the current rules per se as much as they were following the rules that fewer people had found themselves inclined to follow.
It’s clear that we’re very different people with different backgrounds. Thank you for reminding me that we have a lot to learn from the past. Although things seem to be changing faster and faster, it’s important to know where you’re coming from to get a sense of where you’re going — or, perhaps, where you should be going. Thanks for the insightful discussion.
#8 by anton kozlik: Mon Aug 18, 2008 09:45 (UTC -5)
“Thats a fine distinction but an important one.”
My final observation is that in my world, morality trumps legality. There are numerous things in our world which are not moral, but are legal. All the “bad experiences” we had in the software world were judged “legal”. Don’t forget, it is legal in US America to “dismiss” an individual from a civic position because they are an “Atheist”. So, the advice from this old fart is look to your morals before you justify, or help justify, an act.
US America is known as a nation that “does not observe laws if it doesn’t like them”, “has lost numerous cases in the world’s courts and continues anyway”, and allows its defence of its “economy” or spreading of “US style democracy” to dictate which international laws it will observe and which it won’t.
Instead of listening to me go on and on, try reading Noam Chomsky. He is accepted as the top intellectual in the world and that world also considers him “America’s conscience”. If your actions would please Chomsky, that is better than any bible could do. And, besides, Chomsky is consistent.
I, too, enjoyed our discussion and will visit your site often. I will also attempt to stay off of my “soap box”.
#9 by Jordon: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:09 (UTC -5)
I agree that it’s better to do what’s right than what’s legal. While what’s legal is usually clear, what’s right isn’t always. I believe everyone should make their software free (libre), but if they don’t want to, that’s their choice that I must respect. Often, morality and the law line up. The best way for me to go about is not to undermine others but to advance my own views positively.
You’re not the first person to suggest I read Chomsky. Unfortunately, I haven’t had the time lately, but I’ll get around to it one of these days.
No worries about climbing up on a soapbox. If you have something to say, feel free to say it. Just remember that I usually don’t write posts like this. They tend to be more mundane.
#10 by anton kozlik: Mon Aug 18, 2008 14:27 (UTC -5)
Jordan,
Chomski’s web site provides dozens of links to intereting and probitive “talks” or Q&A’s which I get the uninitiated to listen to while they are having a meal, doing the dishes, etc. They certainly make the tasks a lot easier because our minds are occupied with his thougthts. By now you must be a “multi-tasker”. I learned to be a ventriloquist while I was programming. It was a lot of fun!
#11 by Jordon: Mon Aug 18, 2008 17:30 (UTC -5)
I can multitask to a certain degree, but I often work best when I’m giving something my undivided attention. I’ll give those talks a listen when I don’t have much to do.