[tlug] Open source and free are the same [was: Wine and installing of Internet Explorer]

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "Josh" == Josh Glover <tlug@example.com> writes:

    Josh> The definition of Open Source software includes the
    Josh> requirement that software be free as in speech (with various
    Josh> definitions of exactly what "free as in speech means", which
    Josh> is at the kernel of RMS's beef with "Open Source" as opposed
    Josh> to "Free Software"; for the purposes of most sane people,
    Josh> suffice it to whip out a Venn diagram:[1][2]

Both your Venn diagram and your statement of rms's beef are inaccurate
IMO.  Even rms admits that open source software licenses are basically
the same as free software licenses.

There are some corner conditions where they theoretically differ, and
one big practical difference.  The OSI approved the Apple Public
Software License while the FSF did not.  Which proves that the OSI are
human, because the APSL is neither free by the FSF's definition nor
open source by the OSI's IMO.  Interestingly enough, rms's biggest
worry about the current GPL v.2 is that it doesn't deal with the "ASP
loophole" (ie, if you sell an EDP service over the Internet but run
all the programs on your own machine, you can effectively proprietize
GPL'd software you don't own), while that is exactly what the
offensive clause in the APSL attempts to do.  The problem according to
rms is invasion of privacy, but I don't see how you can effectively
close the ASP loophole without an invasion of privacy.  On balance, I
think that serves to show how close to identical the two definitions
and their implementations by the FSF and OSI actually are.

The important difference is entirely in the presentation.  Open source
advocates advocate free software because it's economically superior to
proprietary software, or because it empowers users and developers.
Free software advocates advocate open source software because it
doesn't violate certain inherent human rights---it's a moral issue.

rms's beef with the open source movement is that it implicitly
undervalues freedom, and leads to "backsliding."  He has no problem
with open source software as such, except that OSS software is far
more likely to come with permissive licences (not Copyleft) than FS
is, and he believes that Copyleft leads to more free software in the
appropriate sense of "more."

Recommended reading on the subject are rms's book "Free Software, Free
Society", and Sam Williams's (I think that's the guy's name) partial
biography of rms "Free as in Freedom".  Search "free software" on
Amazon, they'll pop right up.  Linus's book is really interesting too,
although it sheds only a little light on the politics.  They're all
pretty cheap, at least by textbook standards (more expensive than
bunkoban novels), but if you're really in a cash crunch you can get
almost all of rms's book on the gnu.org site under philosophy.

    Josh> Neither am I willing to run Windows when I have a licence
    Josh> key, obtained legally or otherwise, because I feel that the
    Josh> Windows OS is detrimental to the Internet as a whole, both
    Josh> in terms of security and in terms of standards adherence.

Just go by the Orange Book standards and pull the plug on the LAN
card.  Love that C2 rating.  :-)

    Josh> In fact, for me, the main reason that I do Open Source is as
    Josh> a courtesy to my fellow man. In this, RMS and I are on the
    Josh> same page.

I don't know if you are.  As far as I can tell, rms doesn't give one
Italian lira[1] for non-programmer humans.[2]  Their rights don't
count, except for their right to hire programmers to work on free
software programs that they themselves can't fix.  In particular, he
discounts their right to alienate their right to source for sufficient
compensation (ie, "if you reduce the price enough, I'll buy a binary
without source, or source without the right to redistribute") to
nothing.  N.B., he doesn't deny the right, at least he claims he
doesn't, but he does use terms like "backsliding" and "slavery" to
describe its exercise.

My own assessment, which is IMHO and YMMV, and is very likely a "value
judgement",[3] is that rms's advocacy of free software is solipsist: he
feels his rights were violated and he is on a crusade to make sure his
rights are never violated again.  He's willing to extend the
protection of his rights to you, of course, but he's not interested in
your opinion of what your rights are.


Footnotes: 
[1]  At one point in the 1980s, the paper the 1000 lira not was
printed on was worth more than 1000 lira at the recycle shop....

[2]  In regards to software.  In his published comments on development
economics, he's actually regressive.  He thinks that we can improve
the lot of the poor in the "South" by protecting the jobs of workers
in the "North" from unfair import competition!  Anybody from Bangalore
in the audience?

[3]  ISTR Rick Moen had something to say about value judgements, or
maybe I'm confusing that with his rant on "ad hominem" arguments.
Always a fun read.  http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.