[fsug-bangalore] Free Software and Open Source

[dinesh]

I guess that if we interpret

  OSI as Open to *freedom* of forms of open-source definitions

and

  FSF as Freedom obligations that *restrict* the open-source license 
definitions

we can see the *word*ly confusions.

the word free in FSF is confusing if you come
from an open mind of public-domain software
rather than a closed mind of EULAs and protection
-- for free, as an English word is contrary to
setting restrictions -- in spite of the worldly
understanding of the need to police a certain
state of freedom.

the "word" open-source in Open Source Initiative
is confusing as any usage of this word is
appropriated by FSF groups as if one means
it is one of the OSI definitions (and not FSF
definition in particular).

A typical line being:
"dont use open-source, use free-software"

but free-software for most people does
not mean software is gratis/free.
this is appropriation of the word "free"
for "freedom of our understanding"

this is like someone saying
"dont use saffron, for it identifies with RSS/BJP"
and therefore helping the cause of RSS/BJP
by forcing use of safforn for this
particular interpretation only.

I suggest that we should both be open
and free about the usage of open-source
as a new word of English (and many other languages!).


d.

  प्रवीण् ए (Praveen A) wrote:
> 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