Open source, closed source, and the value of code

[Richard Gaskin]

Matt Maier wrote:

 > Robert, as you conduct your research you should also learn about the
 > difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. In brief,
 > Free Software does special things for moral reasons; it is "right"
 > that software be liberated. Open Source Software does special things
 > for pragmatic reasons; it is "useful" that software be easy to use
 > without asking permission.

While that accurately reflects the motivations of Richard Stallman and 
others who create and promote "Free software" as they've described in 
their own writings, motivations are separate from outcomes.   Whether I 
buy flowers for my wife because I think she's pretty or because I'm 
trying to apologize, either way the florist makes $60. :)

It's fully possible for others to enjoy the same outcomes without the 
same philosophical motivation.

All carp are fish, but not all fish are carp, and not all who choose the 
GPL are quite as religious about it as others, or see it as any sort of 
moral imperative at all.

For myself, and many I know, the GPL is a purely practical means to an 
end:  a good choice when one wants to share code both directly and also 
downstream.

I participate in many software projects, and some of the choose GPL.  As 
much as I admire Mr. Stallman personally and professionally I disagree 
with his view of a moral imperative in choosing GPL.  But that 
disagreement doesn't prevent me from choosing it myself, or having 
enjoyed his company over dinner.  Vive le difference.

Like the classical Chinese painting "Three Men at Tiger Brook", we can 
travel together even if we're adhere to different philosophies.



 > The GNU General Public License (GPL) is not an Open Source license,
 > it is a Free license. For reference, here is the Free Software
 > Foundation's stance on Open Source
 > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
 > "...a license designed specifically to protect freedom for all users
 > of a program."
...
 > It doesn't help that Livecode always uses the term "Open Source" when
 > referring to the Community Edition. This could easily (and does) lead
 > people to assume the Community Edition has an Open Source license. It
 > doesn't, so if you're looking for pragmatic terms, rather than
 > idealistic terms, you're going to be confused.

With all due respect to both yourself and Mr. Stallman, what you wrote 
there is correct in terms of his very specific language preferences but 
not necessarily reflective of common usage.

We have a bug in the English language:  we have only "free", but Latin 
has "gratis" distinct from "libre".

So when we refer to "free software", we often have to add 
"free-as-in-freedom" or "free-as-in-beer" to distinguish what we mean.

It's quite true that Mr. Stallman has said many times that he feels Eric 
Raymond's efforts to promote "open source" are misleading, and perhaps 
even "immoral", and strongly prefers "free" to distinguish GPL-governed 
works.

It's also true that when I say "Ubuntu" Mr. Stallman would prefer (and 
not entirely without good reason) that I say "Ubuntu GNU/Linux".

But that's what happens with language:  where phrases are cumbersome 
they evolve into more casual colloquial forms over time.

Today "open source" is often used to describe all software whose source 
is both available to the recipient of the software and where 
modification is explicitly allowed.

It can sometimes be more correct to distinguish between GPL-style 
licenses and other more permissive licenses, but in common usage the 
more frequent distinguishing phrase is "copy-left" for GPL-style terms, 
those with strong downstream inheritance.

The bigger distinction is between proprietary licenses on the one hand 
and the full range of free/open licenses on the other.  So while the 
distinction between "free" and "open" licenses can be useful in specific 
contexts, I see no mistake in using "open source" as a more generic 
superset of free/open licenses.  Indeed, I see it used that way every 
day by a wide range of authoritative writers (no doubt to the annoyance 
of Mr. Stallman, but hey, colloquialism happens).

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com