I've probably misunderstood the difference between the open source, and the free software movements
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
>> Sure, there are many people who are partially convinced by arguments from both movements. But the two fundamentally different movements exist anyway. <<
So, if most people involved in one are also involved in the other, are there really two distinct movements, or one movement with a small minority at one end hating on "open source", and another small minority at the other end hating on "free software" people who hate on "open source"?
>> Names are important. "Free software" is about freedom. It is in the name. "Open source" is about the source code being available, the corner stone of the development methodology. <<
You can keep restating this ideological claim as its own proof until you're blue in the face. All it does is confuse people.
For years I was confused about the two terms, because with the amount of vitriol that pours out of "free software" advocates towards "open source users", I was sure there must be some major differences between "free software" and "open source software". For a while I thought "free software" must mean insisting on copyleft, while "open source" didn't. Eventually I realised that I'd been led astray. In practice, they are two names for *exactly* the same software (except for a handful of edge cases). GNU/Linux is produced by a huge range of people, some of whom talk about "free software", while others talk about "open source", while most use either depending on the situation. Is it one OS developed together by two competing movements? Is it many OS, developed by one movement with two competing discourses for describing its goals? It is really worth getting all pedantic about?
Especially when the result of spewing all that bile at those nasty, bad, "open source user" is that mentioning "free software" in other parts of our movements leads to this sort of bile getting spewed back?
https://www.haiku-os.org/community/forum/making_haiku_free_software
So, if most people involved in one are also involved in the other, are there really two distinct movements (...)?
Yes, there are. Because the reasons for the involvement are fundamentally different.
Let us make an analogy with the European politics. The extreme left (let us call them "communists") and the extreme right (let us call them "nationalists") are two minorities that basically vote in the same way: they are against everything. For instance, they both were vehemently against the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in 2004. For fundamentally different reasons of course: communists want the Europe to be about the people and not a sole collection of economical treaties; nationalists think there should not be any law above the nations.
By your logic "communists" should be called "nationalists" (there are more nationalist representatives than communist ones) to make things less confusing!
Or should both movements be called "centrists" because most citizens who share some ideas with one of them usually share idea with the dominant centrist ideology?!
https://www.haiku-os.org/community/forum/making_haiku_free_software
I am not sure why you put this link. In my opinion, it demonstrates that there are two different movements, not one like you argue. The comments in particular show that Haiku developers do not care about the freedoms of their users. They care about gaining open source users who want the proprietary firmware they accept in their kernel, who want to easily install proprietary software such as drivers and BeOS' original applications (hence instructions in the project documentation), etc. As a consequence, the free software movement, represented by the FSF, which cares about user freedoms, does not endorse Haiku... which does not seek FSF's "approval" anyway.
https://www.haiku-os.org/community/forum/making_haiku_free_software#comment-23456 even sums up the difference (like I did several times in this thread):
For anyone who would like a very brief description of the difference between the two: Open source software is about using the best technical solution. Free software is about believing that software that protects a user's freedom is more important than anything else.
Finally! An argument that doesn't just involve restating claims as their own proof. A shame it's an argument-by-analogy that breaks down at the first examination. Firstly, there's the little matter of communists and nationalists not forking out of a common parent movement.
More troubling for your analogy though, the Constitution for Europe is not the primary output of the communist and nationalist movements. In the case of the software freedom movement, free code is the primary output, regardless of whether the workers creating that output use the language of "free software", "open source", "FOSS", "FLOSS, "libre" or whatever. Communists and nationalist both speaking out against the Constitution of Europe is more akin to the software freedom movement and Microfost both speaking out against "internet fast lanes". By doing so, both are becoming part of a "unified front" against net neutrality, but that doesn't make Microsoft part of the software freedom movement. "Free software" and "open source" are the opposite, a divided front, working together on the same output. Your analogy fails to even illustrate your case (and being an analogy, can't prove it). Good try though :)
>> I am not sure why you put this link. In my opinion, it demonstrates that there are two different movements, not one like you argue.
So, if I showed you a comment thread of a debate between two communist groups, for example, would you then conclude that there are two distinct communist movements? If so, then there is distinct communist movement for every 3 communists that form a splinter group. Are there also thousands of distinct anti-TPPA movements? Clearly this is nonsense. Discursive differences and faction fighting inside a movement does not prove that it's more than one movement, quite the opposite. It proves it's a movement, not a religion.
>> The comments in particular show that Haiku developers do not care about the freedoms of their users. <<
Nope. They show that Haiku *users* do not care about some of their own freedoms. None of the Haiku developers played any part in that debate.
Haiku developers face the same systemic problem that Linux, BSD, and Replicant developers face, namely the power of hardware manufacturers to keep hardware proprietary and force anyone who uses it to incorporate proprietary drivers/ firmware in their OS. You don't solve such systemic problems by refusing to make working software. You make change by releasing working software that uses as few proprietary components as possible, while always moving towards the goal of 0% proprietary components, in every way you can.
This what the GNU Project did. They continued to use proprietary UNIX components until free code alternatives became available. As they built a user base for GNU, they had increasing evidence for their argument that free code is what people want, and this strengthened their negotiating position with the hardware companies. You can see this happening with the FairPhone too.
If Haiku followed your ideological demand not to follow the GNU example, to *never* use proprietary components, even as a transitional strategy, this would prevent them from releasing a working OS or building a userbase. It would prevent them from building a case for hardware companies to let developers (whether inside or outside the Haiku project) see enough specs to write working free code drivers/ firmware for Haiku. It would reduce the amount of free code software potentially available in the future to users. If the GNU Project had followed your commandment, GNU/Linux would not exist. How does this help the movement towards software freedom?
I know nothing about Haiku but I do know that the goal of the GNU project was something that was step by step certainly possible, despite opposite views at the very beginning of the project. (And boom, mere 9 years later Stallman and a few other guys had completed the massive undertaking and GNU/Linux was born.) Hardware on the other hand is certainly not a guaranteed victory because of the greedy secretive manufacturers you mention.
In the case of the software freedom movement, free code is the primary output
I am not sure what "primary" means in this context. If it means "overall goal", then no: "free software" aims to "make computer users free", "open source" aims to "write software of high technical quality".
So, if I showed you a comment thread of a debate between two communist groups, for example, would you then conclude that there are two distinct communist movements?
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism lists about ten different movements inside communism. With different names that enable speaking about their different values in a meaningful way. It does not mean you cannot use "communism" to talk about the intersection of those values. In the same way, "FLOSS" is a useful term to talk about the values that both "free software" and "open source" hold: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html
None of the Haiku developers played any part in that debate.
They are at the root of the debate: they choose to include proprietary firmware, to document the installation of proprietary software, etc.
You make change by releasing working software that uses as few proprietary components as possible, while always moving towards the goal of 0% proprietary components, in every way you can.
If you want to argue for that change, you had better use the term "free software" to be understood. That is indeed the free software way. Not the open source way. Open source users use the best technical solution, even if it is proprietary. Their goal is not "0% proprietary components".
If Haiku followed your ideological demand not to follow the GNU example, to *never* use proprietary components, even as a transitional strategy, this would prevent them from releasing a working OS or building a userbase.
I have never ever made such a demand: there is a need for a transition.
strypey, it's important to note that the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines[1] have more strict requirements than the free software movement overall (or the free functional data movement, which the same thing, but covers our fight with a correct name), mainly because the GNU FSDG doesn't accept the cases where a non-free functional data would be acceptable for personal use or for development of free functional data capable of replacing the very same non-free functional data[2].
So, free system distributions mustn't recommend non-free functional data. The developers of the free system distribution can use non-free functional data in order to develop a free replacement, but they can't pass the non-free functional data along with the free system distribution.
They can pass it along between themselves or to a user that is willing to help testing the free replacement together with the non-free functional data, but you must understand that the free system distribution mustn't do that.
Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the GNU project turned out to be a collection of software projects (or functional data, to cover things like text fonts, documentation, and so on), and while I do understand that they had a goal to make an independent operating system based solely on their software, they soon found out that it would be almost impossible if they were to do it alone, so they decided to start with basic things that could be used on top of a non-free functional data that existed at the time, that is, Unix.
REFERENCES
[1] http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html
[2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html
Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the GNU project turned out to be a collection of software projects (or functional data, to cover things like text fonts, documentation, and so on)
It has always been such a collection of largely independent packages because UNIX is structured in this way. Even in the initial announcement in 1983, rms writes:
Individual programmers can contribute by writing a compatible duplicate of some Unix utility and giving it to me. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would be very hard to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contribution works with the rest of Unix, it will probably work with the rest of GNU.
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
I do understand that they had a goal to make an independent operating system based solely on their software
I do not think it has ever been the goal. The GNU project aimed to get a wholly free operating system as fast as possible. To do so, rms has, since the very beginning of the project, tried to find already existing free software components or to liberate proprietary components by convincing their authors. Because it was faster than writing new components. For instance, the GNU project never started to write an X server because XFree86 was distributed under a free software license. Same thing for the typesetting system: TeX, which predates GNU, has always been free software.
Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the GNU project turned out to be a collection
of software projects (or functional data, to cover things like text fonts,
documentation, and so on)
It has always been such a collection of largely independent packages because
UNIX is structured in this way. Even in the initial announcement in 1983, rms
writes:
Individual programmers can contribute by writing a compatible duplicate of
some Unix utility and giving it to me. For most projects, such part-time
distributed work would be very hard to coordinate; the independently-written
parts would not work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix,
this problem is absent. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix
compatibility. If each contribution works with the rest of Unix, it will
probably work with the rest of GNU.
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
I do understand that they had a goal to make an independent operating system
based solely on their software
I do not think it has ever been the goal. The GNU project aimed to get a
wholly free operating system as fast as possible. To do so, rms has, since
the very beginning of the project, tried to find already existing free
software components or to liberate proprietary components by convincing their
authors. Because it was faster than writing new components. For instance, the
GNU project never started to write an X server because XFree86 was
distributed under a free software license. Same thing for the typesetting
system: TeX, which predates GNU, has always been free software.
strypey, it's important to note that the GNU Free System Distribution
Guidelines[1] have more strict requirements than the free software movement
overall (or the free functional data movement, which the same thing, but
covers our fight with a correct name), mainly because the GNU FSDG doesn't
accept the cases where a non-free functional data would be acceptable for
personal use or for development of free functional data capable of replacing
the very same non-free functional data[2].
So, free system distributions mustn't recommend non-free functional data. The
developers of the free system distribution can use non-free functional data
in order to develop a free replacement, but they can't pass the non-free
functional data along with the free system distribution.
They can pass it along between themselves or to a user that is willing to
help testing the free replacement together with the non-free functional data,
but you must understand that the free system distribution mustn't do that.
REFERENCES
[1] http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html
[2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html
I know nothing about Haiku but I do know that the goal of the GNU project was
something that was step by step certainly possible, despite opposite views at
the very beginning of the project. (And boom, mere 9 years later Stallman and
a few other guys had completed the massive undertaking and GNU/Linux was
born.) Hardware on the other hand is certainly not a guaranteed victory
because of the greedy secretive manufacturers you mention.
In the case of the software freedom movement, free code is the primary output
I am not sure what "primary" means in this context. If it means "overall
goal", then no: "free software" aims to "make computer users free", "open
source" aims to "write software of high technical quality".
So, if I showed you a comment thread of a debate between two communist
groups, for example, would you then conclude that there are two distinct
communist movements?
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism lists about ten different
movements inside communism. With different names that enable speaking about
their different values in a meaningful way. It does not mean you cannot use
"communism" to talk about the intersection of those values. In the same way,
"FLOSS" is a useful term to talk about the values that both "free software"
and "open source" hold: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html
None of the Haiku developers played any part in that debate.
They are at the root of the debate: they choose to include proprietary
firmware, to document the installation of proprietary software, etc.
You make change by releasing working software that uses as few proprietary
components as possible, while always moving towards the goal of 0%
proprietary components, in every way you can.
If you want to argue for that change, you had better use the term "free
software" to be understood. That is indeed the free software way. Not the
open source way. Open source users use the best technical solution, even if
it is proprietary.
If Haiku followed your ideological demand not to follow the GNU example, to
*never* use proprietary components, even as a transitional strategy, this
would prevent them from releasing a working OS or building a userbase.
I have never ever made such a demand: there is a need for a transition.
Finally! An argument that doesn't just involve restating claims as their own
proof. A shame it's an argument-by-analogy that breaks down at the first
examination. Firstly, there's the little matter of communists and
nationalists not forking out of a common parent movement.
More troubling for your analogy though, the Constitution for Europe is not
the primary output of the communist and nationalist movements. In the case of
the software freedom movement, free code is the primary output, regardless of
whether the workers creating that output use the language of "free software",
"open source", "FOSS", "FLOSS, "libre" or whatever. Communists and
nationalist both speaking out against the Constitution of Europe is more akin
to the software freedom movement and Microfost both speaking out against
"internet fast lanes". By doing so, both are becoming part of a "unified
front" against net neutrality, but that doesn't make Microsoft part of the
software freedom movement. "Free software" and "open source" are the
opposite, a divided front, working together on the same output. Your analogy
fails to even illustrate your case (and being an analogy, can't prove it).
Good try though :)
>> I am not sure why you put this link. In my opinion, it demonstrates that
there are two different movements, not one like you argue.
So, if I showed you a comment thread of a debate between two communist
groups, for example, would you then conclude that there are two distinct
communist movements? If so, then there is distinct communist movement for
every 3 communists that form a splinter group. Are there also thousands of
distinct anti-TPPA movements? Clearly this is nonsense. Discursive
differences and faction fighting inside a movement does not prove that it's
more than one movement, quite the opposite. It proves it's a movement, not a
religion.
>> The comments in particular show that Haiku developers do not care about
the freedoms of their users.
So, if most people involved in one are also involved in the other, are there
really two distinct movements (...)?
Yes, there are. Because the reasons for the involvement are fundamentally
different.
Let us make an analogy with the European politics. The extreme left (let us
call them "communists") and the extreme right (let us call them
"nationalists") are two minorities that basically vote in the same way: they
are against everything. For instance, they both were vehemently against the
treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in 2004. For fundamentally
different reasons of course: communists want the Europe to be about the
people and not a sole collection of economical treaties; nationalists think
there should not be any law above the nations.
By your logic "communists" should be called "nationalists" (there are more
nationalist representatives than communist ones) to make things less
confusing!
Or should both movements be called "centrists" because most citizens who
share some ideas with one of them usually share idea with the dominant
centrist ideology?!
https://www.haiku-os.org/community/forum/making_haiku_free_software
I am not sure why you put this link. In my opinion, it demonstrates that
there are two different movements, not one like you argue. The comments in
particular show that Haiku developers do not care about the freedoms of their
users. They care about gaining open source users who want the proprietary
firmware they accept in their kernel, who want to install proprietary
software (hence instructions in the project documentation), etc. As a
consequence, the free software movement, represented by the FSF, which cares
about user freedoms, does not endorse Haiku... which does not seek the FSF
"approval" anyway.
>> Sure, there are many people who are partially convinced by arguments from
both movements. But the two fundamentally different movements exist anyway. >
Names are important. "Free software" is about freedom. It is in the name.
"Open source" is about the source code being available, the corner stone of
the development methodology.
"Since we agree we are talking about one movement, I think its untrue to
claim, as some continue to do on this forum and others, that people who use
the language of "open source" don't care about software freedom"
Although there are some people that indeed do not care, because I've met
them. They're interested only in the technical aspects. Of making software
better and they reject the notion that there is any type of social, ethical,
or political issue. They'll use a proprietary program if it's technically
better. For them it is purely about technical issues and nothing else. Not
surprisingly, they say "open source."
And so, when I read things like "Why Open Source misses the point of Free
Software" and it says that it was started by people that rejected the social,
ethical, or political issues, I find that very easy to believe based on my
personal experiences because I've met such such people and can confirm that
they do indeed exist.
So while it can be framed as one single movement, people's reasons for
participating it in are very different as I've explained.
But that doesn't mean, as you say, that everyone that says "open source"
doesn't care about those issues. There are indeed those that do. Indeed, when
I first got started the term "open source" is what I first found. The concept
I had in my mind, though, was about software freedom. As I learned more about
the issues I stopped saying that and changed to say "free software" instead.
I try to get others similarly situated (those that say "open source" but are
thinking of freedom in their mind) to say "free software" instead, so as to
re-focus on the freedom aspect.
And maybe some day I'll be able to convince those that say "open source" and
reject the social, ethical, and political issues to come around and care
about those things. Or maybe they're a lost cause. I'm not sure. But if I
don't make the attempt (which in my book also includes positioning things
just the right way, including the words I use like "free software") then it's
a lost cause for sure.
"free software" and "open source" are two discourses, prioritizing different
motivations for essentially the same practice.
The software is the same (minus software under a few unpopular licenses). The
practices are not. Most users of "open source" (but the rare purists I
mentioned in my last post and are wrong in their believes, in my humble
opinion) will use proprietary software when it is technically better. They
will even recommend that software because it is technically better. The users
of "free software" reject proprietary software because it does not respect
their freedoms. Even when there is no alternative. To them, freedom is more
important than any technical convenience.
Since we agree we are talking about one movement
We do not! The practices are different (see above). More importantly, the
values are different. I believe open source proponents are partially right
when they claim that their beloved development method results in technically
better software. But that is secondary to me. I use and write free software
because it is the only way that is ethically, socially and politically
acceptable when it comes to software.
Sure, there are many people who are partially convinced by arguments from
both movements. But the two fundamentally different movements exist anyway.
I think its untrue to claim, as some continue to do on this forum and others,
that people who use the language of "open source" don't care about software
freedom, and that people who use the language of "free software" don't care
about code auditing, patch submission and other aspects of "open source
development" methodology.
Names are important. "Free software" is about freedom. It is in the name.
"Open source" is about the source code being available, the corner stone of
the development methodology. Because they are two different movements, it is
important to distinguish them with two different names. I am in favor of free
software. I am not in favor of open source (what does not mean I consider
"open source" as an enemy; proprietary software is the enemy).
See https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html for a similar argument on
calling the operating system "GNU/Linux" and not "Linux".
>> It is not like a user is forced to choose a camp and fight the other camp!
Proprietary software is the enemy of both "free software" and open source
software" proponents.
But how do freely licensed projects ever become better than their proprietary
counterparts? Because free software advocates work on them to make it so.
Open source users probably will do nothing to aid the said software until it
is better than the proprietary alternative.
Using the words interchangeably is a bad idea as they have different meaning.
https://mako.cc/writing/hill-when_free_software_isnt_better.html
This may not be what you meant, but it seems like you're saying that if
software is not developed using an "open source" method, "open source
proponents use proprietary software".
I was not clear at all. I meant "open source proponents use the technically
better software (more features, more user-friendly, more reliable, more
secure, ... every user has her own criteria) even if it is proprietary".
Some people are most purist, and will accept a less useful computing
experience rather than make this compromise.
First of all, there are features that greatly depend on the development
method. E.g., source code auditing is essential to security. Users who want
security above all will be open source proponents and only choose open source
software that many would say is technically worse than the proprietary
equivalent. To them it is technically better because it is more secure, the
feature they value most. The sentence I clarified above therefore remains
true.
Then, there are those you call "open source purists". I really forgot about.
They are rare though. They are people who believe that the open source
software will necessarily become technically better because its development
method is better. They want to help this technically better software to
emerge (by contributing) and they do not want to spend time with proprietary
software that is doomed to be technically overtaken by open source software.
It is what they believe. Despite the reality I would say...
Anyway, the conclusion remains the same:
"open source" is about a development method that is supposed to make
technically better software; it is a technical movement.
"free software" is about users' freedoms; it is a social/ethical/political
movement.
And, of course, there are users who are partly convinced by free software
arguments, and partly convinced by open source arguments. It is not like a
user is forced to choose a camp and fight the other camp! Proprietary
software is the enemy of both "free software" and open source software"
proponents.
This may not be what you meant, but it seems like you're saying that if
software is not developed using an "open source" method, "open source
proponents use proprietary software". I've never heard of anyone actually
doing this. Some people will use a proprietary program when there are no free
code alternatives, or when those that are available do not work reliably.
Some people are most purist, and will accept a less useful computing
experience rather than make this compromise. This is a tactical decision, and
generally has more to do with how long people have been using libre software,
and how well they understand the arguments for it, than whether they use the
language of "free software", "open source", or use both interchangeably. The
more free code software applications there are, the more reliable and
user-friendly they are, the less reason there is for anyone to compromise.
Putting our energy into helping this happen is far more fruitful than
hassling people about about their choices of words.
I just blogged some thoughts on the origins of the two discourses here:
http://www.coactivate.org/projects/disintermedia/blog/2016/01/21/why-the-difference/
The difference between free software guys and open source guys is that free software guys prioritise freedom of the user,where as open source guys first prioritise the software,and the benefits of developing openly.
I am a translator!
The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of “free software” made some people uneasy. That's true: raising ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.
That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain users, especially business.
This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even develop, free software, which has extended our community—but only at the superficial, practical level. The philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it. That is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom secure. Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.
Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies gratis. Why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free software. To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.
This discussion is getting quite circular, so I doubt I'll contribute anything further. However, I do encourage all to read this challenging article by Mike Linksvayer, which makes some of the points I've been bashing away at, but does it much more articulately:
http://costoffreedom.cc/book/opening:freedom/my-brain-on-freedom
You do realize that is a "free culture" article you linked and is not relevant to a "libre software" discussion? Also, just as a disclaimer, since I'm new to the "troll hole" thread: I am a libre software developer/advocate and I am vehemently against being grouped in with the "free culture" movement.
Also note this, humans are complex beings that are able to work toward similar results without doing so on purpose.
A clear-cut logical answer to your original question is that a movement is defined by who leads it. In the case of the free/libre software movement, that would be the FSF. In the case of "open-source movement", that would the osi. The fact that they are two separate leaderships, which do not agree with the each others methods, means that no matter how much you whine and moan about it: they are two separate movements and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. The actions and overall decisions of the followers of each leadership do not define these two movements. So until one of these leaderships defers to the other, there will be two separate movements which on the surface appear to have the similar results.
If you need that in analogy-form: You can buy a basketball from either of 2 local sports stores. Are you going to say that just because both of them can sell you a basketball that they are the same store? More to the point, if buying a basketball from one of these stores will prevent it from going bankrupt and doom the other store to fail, are you not going to take into account who is the owner of that store?
The free/libre software movement and the "open-source movement" are not indistinguishable things that you can substitute for each other because you think they are the same thing. Each movement is the materialization of the ideas and philosophies of those behind it. You can no more interchange them than you can people. Doing similar work does not mean they are the same person.
If one of those two stores were owned by {insert the worst person you can think of} and the other was owned by {insert someone of lesser harm to the world}. Whose store would you buy the basketball from? According to your argument, it wouldn't matter because they both sell basketballs, so who cares!~
Personally, I find that type of thinking is irresponsible, but if that's what floats your boat, then go ahead and ignore logic and while your at it, stay away from me.
I have also to agree with you (PyroSamurai), when you say that "free culture" is different from "free software culture" (or "libre culture", as you seem to have suggested, if I'm not mistaken). I don't feel comfortable when seeing people calling us "free culture activists" or such things.
I have answered some people with an explanation about my views on the "free culture" movement, and the answers are here in this very same topic (there are at least three of them, so I suggest you to use your browser's search function in this very same forum topic). Besides, I plan to write blog posts about the differences too, both in English and in Brazilian Portuguese. And I'll of course link to the blog post here in this topic when it becomes ready.
To summarize it, just like RMS said some time ago, I'm also only concerned with half of freedom 2 (half of it would be: "to redistribute copies of the original versions non-commercially", which is like saying "to share the original work"). However, just as the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines points out, in the case for free system distributions, the freedom 2 as a whole must be given for the non-functional data. Remember however, that this is just a simplification of the arguments I've presented here, and as such, the references must be pursued in this very same forum topic and we must also take into account the licenses of the works, not just mere written words.
I have also to agree with you (PyroSamurai), when you say that "free culture"
is different from "free software culture" (or "libre culture", as you seem to
have suggested, if I'm not mistaken). I don't feel comfortable when seeing
people calling us "free culture activists" or such things.
I have answered some people with an explanation about my views on the "free
culture" movement, and the answers are here in this very same topic (there
are at least three of them, so I suggest you to use your browser's search
function in this very same forum topic). Besides, I plan to write blog posts
about the differences too, both in English and in Brazilian Portuguese. And
I'll of course link to the blog post here in this topic when it becomes
ready.
To summarize it, just like RMS said some time ago, I'm also only concerned
with half of freedom 2 (half of it would be: "to redistribute copies of the
original versions non-commercially", which is like saying "to share the
original work"). However, just as the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines
points out, in the case for free system distributions, the freedom 2 as a
whole must be given for the non-functional data. Remember however, that this
is just a simplification of the arguments I've presented here, and as such,
the references must be pursued in this very same forum topic and we must also
take into account the licenses of the works, not just mere written words.
You do realize that is a "free culture" article you linked and is not
relevant to a "libre software" discussion? Also, just as a disclaimer, since
I'm new to the "troll hole" thread: I am a libre software developer/advocate
and I am vehemently against being grouped in with the "free culture"
movement.
Also note this, OP, humans are complex beings that are able to work toward
similar results without doing so on purpose.
A clear-cut logical answer to your original question is that a movement is
defined by who leads it. In the case of the free/libre software movement,
that would be the FSF. In the case of "open-source movement", that would the
osi. The fact that they are two separate leaderships, which do not agree with
the each others methods, means that no matter how much you whine and moan
about it: they are two separate movements and will continue to be for the
foreseeable future. The actions and overall decisions of the followers of
each leadership do not define these two movements. So until one of these
leaderships defers to the other, there will be two separate movements which
on the surface appear to have the similar results.
If you need that in analogy-form: You can buy a basketball from either of 2
local sports stores. Are you going to say that just because both of them can
sell you a basketball that they are the same store? More to the point, if
buying a basketball from one of these stores will prevent it from going
bankrupt and doom the other store to fail, are you not going to take into
account who is the owner of that store?
The free/libre software movement and the "open-source movement" are not
indistinguishable things that you can substitute for each other because you
think they are the same thing. Each movement is the materialization of the
ideas and philosophies of those behind it. You can no more interchange them
than you can people. Doing similar work does not mean they are the same
person.
If one of those two stores were owned by {insert the worst person you can
think of} and the other was owned by {insert someone of lesser harm to the
world}. Whose store would you buy the basketball from? According to your
argument, it wouldn't matter because they both sell basketballs, so who
cares!~
Personally, I find that type of thinking is irresponsible, but if that's what
floats your boat, then go ahead and ignore logic and while your at it, stay
away from me.
I think you're interpreting differences where there are none. The primary
difference between free software and open source is that free software is
about ethics, and open source is about a development methodology. The cases
where the OSI and FSF disagree are typically licenses which don't pose major
challenges to the open source development model, but which do pose unjust
restrictions on users to that end.
> the strongest difference between the Open Source Definition and the Free
Software Definition seems to be that: The Open Source Definition doesn't have
a provision against tivoization, restricted boot or digital
restrictions/rights management (DRM).
The GNU GPL version 3 is the only major license that effectively forbids
tivoization. No libre license forbids DRM; version 3 of the GNU GPL simply
states that no feature in the program is to be interpreted as an "effective
technological protection measure" under the WIPO treaties (DMCA, etc).
Restricted boot isn't addressed in any software license at all.
It's true that the OSI doesn't really speak out against these problems, but
that's because the OSI has nothing to do with these things. Remember, open
source is presented as a development methodology, distinct from any ethical
values or politics.
> the resulting work can contain, under the Open Source Definition at least,
mechanisms which deny the users' freedom towards the functional data like, as
stated earlier: tivoization, restricted boot or digital restrictions/rights
management (DRM), and other mechanisms which prevent the user to exercise the
freedom to use adaptations of the functional data (freedom 0).
Sure, this kind of thing happens all the time. Usually, an open source
proponent will use terms like "powered by open source" or "contains open
source" to distinguish such a case from something that is actually open
source.
The primary difference from the free software community is that we don't
respect proprietary programs being derived from libre software; we treat them
the same as any other proprietary program. This just comes down to open
source only being a development methodology; to an open source proponent,
inclusion of open source software in a proprietary program is only proof that
the development model has produced high-quality software, and thus a
flattering gesture.
> the Linux kernel source is free and open source, but some resulting builds
could be non-free software due to the way they're made[5]. This could be the
true reason as to why Linux-libre is needed.
No, you are mistaken. Linux, as distributed by Torvalds, contains proprietary
software in the form of firmware blobs, and thus it is proprietary.
Linux-libre just removes those blobs. It has nothing to do with how the
software was made or how it is compiled.
> Do you think that non-free software should be installed by us to a computer
user, if for example, we can't manage to buy hardware (either charging the
user, or by charity or crowd-funding between us) to replace the hardware
which requires non-free software to work?
In other words: "Is it better to help someone use their computer at all by
installing a required proprietary program for them, or is it better to refuse
to help them and leave them with a pastic brick?" There's nuance in the
answer, so I'm afraid there can't be any one that fits all cases. You have to
consider what that device will do for the person. If it will help them
survive somehow, then I would consider it morally wrong to refuse to help
them on the grounds that doing so will involve installing some proprietary
software. On the other hand, if it will give them only entertainment in
exchange for a very high risk of state surveillance, I would consider it
morally wrong to help them get it working. Others may disagree with me on
either of these cases. I suspect a lot of open source proponents would agree
with me on the former case, while they wouldn't see any moral dilemma at all
in the latter case.
> Do you think that we can recommend or teach the user how to use the
non-free software, specifically speaking (such as a command which is only
available to that non-free software)?
Teaching people things is never unethical. If you start to consider the
spread of knowledge to be unethical, you go down a slippery slope that leads
to acceptance or even advocacy of censorship. There might be things you'd
rather not teach people, though. Each individual has to decide on their own.
> Do you think that we can recommend or install non-functional data that
can't be redistributed non-commercially ("redistributed non-commercially" =
"shared")?
I think denying ourselves non-libre culture, and thus almost the entirety of
our own cultures, is not a useful way to enact change. What we should be
doing to this end is encouraging people to infringe copyright law by sharing
whenever they want to, and saying that unauthorized sharing (or "piracy") is
good. When enough people think that copyright shouldn't be a thing, it will
go away. So no, there's nothing wrong with giving your friend a copyrighted,
"all rights reserved" image.
> Do you think that we can play/watch/view non-functional data that can't be
redistributed non-commercially ("redistributed non-commercially" = "shared")?
See above. If you refuse to take any part in a culture dominated by
proprietary works, how can you possibly enact change within that culture? I
would say, take part in it, but pay little heed to the unjust law that is
copyright, and encourage others to do so as well.
I just blogged some thoughts on the origins of the two discourse here:
http://www.coactivate.org/projects/disintermedia/blog/2016/01/21/why-the-difference/
The difference between free software guys and open source guys is that free
software guys prioritise freedom of the user,where as open source guys first
prioritise the software,and the benefits of developing openly.
I am a translator!
The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source camp from
the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of “free software”
made some people uneasy. That's true: raising ethical issues such as freedom,
talking about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to
think about things they might prefer to ignore, such as whether their conduct
is ethical. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may simply close
their minds to it. It does not follow that we ought to stop talking about
these issues.
That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do. They figured
that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the
immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to
“sell” the software more effectively to certain users, especially
business.
This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric of open
source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even
develop, free software, which has extended our community—but only at the
superficial, practical level. The philosophy of open source, with its purely
practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free software;
it brings many people into our community, but does not teach them to defend
it. That is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom
secure. Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the way to
becoming defenders of their own freedom.
Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary
software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such
temptation, some even offering copies gratis. Why would users decline? Only
if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, to value
freedom in and of itself rather than the technical and practical convenience
of specific free software. To spread this idea, we have to talk about
freedom. A certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be
useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common that
the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.
EDIT: I see I didn't format the text here, no *em*. This was Stallman, clearly..
This discussion is getting quite circular, so I doubt I'll contribute
anything further. However, I do encourage all to read this challenging
article by Mike Linksvayer, which makes some of the points I've been bashing
away at, but does it much more articulately:
http://costoffreedom.cc/book/opening:freedom/my-brain-on-freedom
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires