[Fsf-friends] Free Software and Open Source

[प्रवीण् ए (Praveen A)]

Hi,

Nagarjun replies to a long thread in ilug Mumbai about Free Software and
Open Source

Clarifies a lot of doubts.
See the thread here
http://mm.glug-bom.org/pipermail/linuxers/Week-of-Mon-20060417/025404.html

Regards
Praveen
_____________________________


This is a reply to the entire thread so far, so not quoting any of
them.

I wish to clarify the difference by example, between OSS and <free>
(swatantra/mukta/ajadi) software.

Take 'Pine', an email client, releases source code, you can modify the
sources, but can't distribute the changes you make according to pine
license.  Such a software is open source according to OSI.  So,
opening is not enough, we need the freedom to distribute the changes
we make.  Similarly 'scilab', a scientific application, is open source
but not a <free> software.

Therefore, all <free> software is open source, but not vice versa. So,
free software is a proper subset of open source software.

However, the number of open source applications that are not free
software is very very tiny.  So, it is also correct to say MOST open
source applications are free software.  Count the number of
applications, not the number of licenses, to get the correct inclusion
relation between them. If, OSI excludes those few applications that do
not give the freedom to distribute the changes, then all <free>
software is open source and vice versa.  FSF should not change its
stand is very clear, if you see how carefully the <free> software is
defined.  OSI's definition is left vague. May be business thrives by
being vague. Let us ask OSI to modify their license listing policy.

The use of the term 'open source' by the OSI may have created a nice
term for the tongue, but at the cost of freedom.  But, as I told you
MOST open source applications do give you the freedom anyway. Still,
it is surprising that OSI advocates seldom talk of the values like
freedom. They continue to fetch contracts from govt and companies by
arguing that oss is economical.  Remember, they said they wanted to
eliminate precisely this problem when they chose 'open' in place of
'free'. Did they succeed in clarifying?  Certainly not.

Open source adherents talk of total cost of ownership, while <free>
software people say freedom is always expensive for we need to protect
it constantly. That is why I always end my speach with: "Run for
freedom even if it is expensive!"  In order to sustain freedom we need
to constantly work against the tendencies that try to take away our
freedom.  Metaphorically, a system must do work to maintain its
stability, other wise the system will tend to a state of higher
entropy.  <Free> software community is an open system, like a living
organism, takes feed from the environment and sustains itself by
working against non-free software and those who promote them.

I agree with the interpretation that <free> software is a social,
cultural movement with wider implications to the future of human
society.  open source movement, if at all it is, emphasizes technology
and a development model.  I have no disagreements with their
development model.

If only OSI mends their licensing list policy, the differences between
<free> and open source community will become thinner, if not disappear.

--
"Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn."
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr