Submitted by “Eben Moglen admits he is a ‘talker’ and his performance during our brief 30-minute chat does nothing to persuade otherwise. The former general counsel to the Free Software Foundation was at the Red Hat Summit in San Diego on Thursday to put his considerable oratorical skills to use, updating attendees around the soon-to-be-launched third instalment of the GNU General Public License.”
Eben is a free software advocate, not open source. Please stop spreading false information.
Also, if you haven’t heard it, his speech at the last Plone conference is absolutely amazing.
You are right, but Thom only linked the article from Zdnet UK. You can’t expect Zdnet to really knw the difference between open source and free software.
Sigh… I must admit that I’m getting somewhat tired of the seemingly endless free software vs. open source quarrelling… Besides, the interview article itself has not much to do with that fight – it deals with much more general issues.
(I’m not willing to take any side in that endless free software vs. open source fight, especially here, but anyway:) people who are not hardcore GNU/FSF supporters often seem to prefer the more relaxed open source term simply because it seems to be a broader term and so also includes free software within its broader borders (a single short descriptive term instead of complicated explanations and fights). Also, actually in the article they use the term “free and open software” – probably just in order to be able to speak about both open source and free software.
The term open-source (written with a hyphen, by the way, so not exactly the same as “open source” if you want to nit-pick terms.. is used only in the article title, perhaps some editor just wanted as short a title as possible, and open-source just happens to be a relatively short term.
Also, actually they do mainly use the term free software in this story, and, the Free Software Foundation is mentioned several times too – so no reason to lose your sleep for such a small issue here – even if your were an ardent free software partisan..?
Edited 2007-05-13 00:18
Open-source software is not really any broader than free software. In fact, most open-source software is free software. The one notable license that is open-source but not free software is an early version of the Apple Public Source License, and this has since been resolved.
One common misconception is that free software has to be under a copyleft license. However, non-copyleft licenses, even the BSD and X11, which have no explicit requirement to distribute corresponding source code, are considered free software so long as the source is made available. The FSF recommends copyleft licenses but also recommends the LGPL for situations where copyleft might not be practical.
There is currently no strong copyleft license that terminates in response to patent aggression. That’s the role of the upcoming GPLv3. The GPLv2 is incompatible with free software licenses that include these kinds of patent termination cases or ones that require an explicit patent license grant to the recipient. Copyleft, by definition, creates license compatibility challenges. Hence there are many free software licenses that are incompatible with the GPL because of additional restrictions that are actually supported by the FSF. For example, while the 3-clause BSD is GPL-compatible, the Apache 2.0 is not.
There are also many free software licenses that are incompatible with the GPL because of restrictions that are not supported by the FSF. These licenses usually break compatibility with the GPL over issues like attribution and clauses that prevent the software from inclusion in non-gratis free software products. The CDDL requires all kinds of attributions to be retained and grants the original distributor exclusive patent rights in modifications. The FSF also objects to the use of the term “intellectual property” in the CDDL.
The choice of the terms “free software” or “open-source software” reflects a distinction in whether the emphasis is on the concept or the implications of freedom as it relates to software. Most of the time, this simply doesn’t matter, and the terms can be used interchangeably. Or at least that’s my take on this, as my own use of the terms is mixed and inconsistent.
It should be clear that many people not directly involved in the free software movement, simply find the term “free software” very vague.
Probably everyone reading OSAlert has noticed that many ordinary people believe that “free software” must mean the same as freeware. Why? Because the term is so vague, full of emotional and political emotion but not too scientific in the way it uses the term free.
So what does the term “free” mean especially when used with software? Why do people have to explain the term “free software” all the time and write long articles only about the meaning of the term? The fact is that free software is quite far from being an exact scientific term.
Free software is meant to be a catchy political term.
The term open source, on the other hand is just a simple and descriptive term: the source code is open, and that’s it.
A good term (good in scientific and semiotic sense) should be as clear as possible without too much extra explaining needed. However, the concept of free software doesn’t in itself aim for conceptual clarity at all but it rather reflects a certain political agenda.
In summary: It is just simply so that many people who value conceptual clarity – and perhaps also try to be neutral about political agendas – rather prefer a simpler and clearer term like “open source” instead of more political terms like “free software”. However, they may still have nothing against the free software ideology and may even be strong supporters of it. They just prefer clear and neutral terminology. Simple, no?
Here’s a suggestion to all freesoftware partisans: If you think that open source is not a suitable term to cover both free software and other sorts of open source, please, tell us what would be a better general term for software that is not closed source software but the source code is open?
I think that the main original goal of using the term open source may have been only to have a more neutral and broader term than the more political concept of free software. However, FSF didn’t accept that new general term. So any better suggestions for a broad general term that covers all open sourcre and free software, please?
Oh, and I have basically nothing against the free software ideology. So don’t try to put me into some odd open source against free software crowd where I do not belong to. I just try to be objective and neutral with terminology here.
Edited 2007-05-13 17:02
In other words, although you can find the FSF definition for the term free software in many places ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software ) there exists huge amounts of various different meanings for the word “free” in different contexts, and the FSF definition of the word free doesn’t cover but a very, very tiny subset of the various meanings of the term free. Thus the term free software in itself seems to need explaining all the time. That may even be the most common and very simple reason why many IT people may prefer the clearer concept “open source” – whether they support the FSF ideology or not. Actually, they may even prefer the term “free software” with those “free software insiders” who do know the FSF definition of the term, but using the term “free software” among ordinary people may cause lots of endless confusion just because of the vagueness of the term “free”.
Edited 2007-05-13 17:19
>Why? Because the term is so vague [..] So what does the term “free” mean especially when used with software?
It means “free as in freedom” like in “free speech” or “free labour”. English speaking people can understand that “free speech” doesn’t mean “gratis speech” and “free labour” doesn’t mean “gratis labour” so why shouldn’t they understand “Free Software”? I have explained Free Software to many people who have never before heard about it. And you know what? They understand it directly, because “free as in freedom” and the 4 freedoms which defines Free Software are really logical and understandable. It’s is even nice that they could repeat the 4 freedoms 1-2 weeks later if i talked to them again. Try this with Open Source and the 10 point (!) Open Source Definition.
You ask: “What does free mean?”. You can also ask “What does open mean?”
You have to explain both, but “free software” covers an original meaning of the word free and matched pretty well with the 4 freedoms while “open source” doesn’t have a natural meaning which matches the 10 point definition. Also an big advantage of Free Software is that i can speak with the people in their own language and in many of these languages “Free Software” is even unequivocal. For example: logiciels libre, software libre, software libero,…
Also important. It’s just a matter of respect to follow the language of the person who have defined and named this kind of software first.
> It is just simply so that many people who value conceptual clarity – and perhaps also try to be neutral about political agendas
no term is really neutral. Whether you decide to talk about freedom in the digital age or not, it’s always a political statement. Once it’s “freedom matters” and once it’s “freedom doesn’t matters”.
>please, tell us what would be a better general term for software that is not closed source software but the source code is open?
What does it mean that source code is open?
Probably you mean software which gives the users the freedom to run the program for any purpose, to study it and adapt it to their needs, to distribute copies and to distribute modified copies. I have a term for it: Free Software.
Or do you mean software where the source code is open so that you can read it but can’t change it or distribute it to others? I don’t know a term for it. Maybe you could call it “open source” because it matches the natural meaning of open. I would just call it non-Free Software.
Edited 2007-05-13 17:43
“What does it mean that source code is open?
Probably you mean software which gives the users the freedom to run the program for any purpose, to study it and adapt it to their needs, to distribute copies and to distribute modified copies. Or do you mean software where the source code is open so that you can read it but can’t change it or distribute it to others?”
Hmm… Ok, that’s indeed quite a good point. Thanks for the clarification. There are many sorts licenses also in free software / open source world and thus various, quite different ways to reveal and/or use source code.
However, I’m not sure if I could believe that the concept of free software would be automatically clearer to so-called common people (without much previous knowledge about the matter) than open source. For example, I’ve plenty of experience of ordinary people thinking that free software (also) means the same as freeware or public domain software. Also, some who try to work against free software seem to use the vaguenuess of the term free in that term to their own advantage when criticising free software.
I have not noticed that people wouldn’t easily understand the basic meaning of open source code. Well, OSI may have a 10 point open source definition but isn’t that mostly legal text related to software licenses – not necessarily needed to clarify the basic meaning of the word “open source” to common people.
But, yes, it may indeed be true that also the term open source may be more vague than I’ve even realized. Also it is indeed difficult – if not impossible – to use totally neutral language.
However, there are also always more neutral (or more political oriented) ways of talking about things (for example, the various terms related to nations/peoples can be either quite neutral or very political or even very offensive). Not all terms related to a subject are equally political and partial/biased.
So, what might be that relatively neutral term that could be used about both free software (FSF definition) and open source (OSI definition)? If the term open source is not ok? Some have tried to use both terms together: free and open source software (maybe good(?) but but rather long as a term) – or FOSS or FLOSS (etc.) for short – but abbreviations work only if you already know their meaning.
>However, I’m not sure if I could believe that the concept of free software would be automatically clearer to so-called common people (without much previous knowledge about the matter) than open source.
I have never compared it with open source, because i don’t talk about open source. But i have talked to many common people (also people who even don’t have/use a computer) and they understand Free Software quiet well, perhaps straight because they can compare it with things they know from their daily life like “free speech” and “free labour”.
>Also, some who try to work against free software seem to use the vaguenuess of the term free in that term to their own advantage when criticising free software.
you can always use terms for different things. Many words in our language has more than one meaning. But Free (as in freedom) Software matches one of this natural meanings, Open Source does not. So it’s much easier to abuse Open Source. Even Bruce Perens has recognized it: http://groups.google.de/group/muc.lists.debian.user/msg/c8001c56bdf…
>Well, OSI may have a 10 point open source definition but isn’t that mostly legal text related to software licenses – not necessarily needed to clarify the basic meaning of the word “open source” to common people.
No, it’s no legal text. It’s a definition like the Free Software definition. But it’s a larger, harder to remind and understand definition and the definition doesn’t match the natural meaning of the term “open”.
>Also it is indeed difficult – if not impossible – to use totally neutral language.
Yes, human language is equivocal. That’s because you don’t gain a lot by replacing one term with another. But their are good reasons to stick with the original term. I have already described some reasons in my previous post. Therefor in short:
– respect for the founder of the movement (don’t hijack a movement)
– short and easy definition (4 freedoms)
– term matches with the natural meaning of the word.
– can be used natively in any language
Another argument is that imho “open source” has wrong arguments. Open Source argues with a development model but it’s about freedom. This leads to situations where a company releases something as Free Software and than Open Source people say that it’s not true “open source” or that the company hasn’t understand “open source” because they still develop the software in-house. But Free Software isn’t about a development model. The one and only point is to respect users freedom. It doesn’t make a difference if someone wants to develop the software by himself or in a community.
>So, what might be that relatively neutral term that could be used about both free software (FSF definition) and open source (OSI definition)?
I don’t search for a “more neutral” term, because the message isn’t neutral. The Free Software movement is a political movement for freedom in the digital age. Even if all my arguments for Free Software would fail (what i don’t think) one argument will always remain: respect and don’t hijack a movement.
>Some have tried to use both terms together: free and open source software (maybe good(?) but but rather long as a term) – or FOSS or FLOSS (etc.) for short – but abbreviations work only if you already know their meaning.
FOSS or FLOSS are rather bad ideas. Because technically “Free Software” and “Open Source” mean the same group of licenses. So it just doesn’t make sense to say two times or even three times the same. It’s not a question of creating a new term as a umbrella for two things. It’s a question about one name for one thing. And i have already stated the arguments for calling it Free Software.
Anyway – yeah, they should have written “Interview: Free Software Advocate Eben Moglen” in the article title. But they didn’t and used the term open-source instead of free software – probably only because the title editor just thought that free software is also open source software. But, hey, the content of the interview is quite ok nevertheless.
(So – as I had submitted the interview as news here, I guess I got a little offended by the first commentator accusing people (me too?) for spreading false information which, of course, was not my intention. I just wanted people to read an Eben Moglen interview because I think quite highly of him and his opinions…
Edited 2007-05-13 19:16
>(So – as I had submitted the interview as news here, I guess I got a little offended by the first commentator accusing people (me too?) for spreading false information which, of course, was not my intention. I just wanted people to read an Eben Moglen interview because I think quite highly of him and his opinions…
Please don’t see any of my comments as an offence. It’s just a correction so that other peopel who may read the comments will understand the difference.
Thank you for submitting the interview! I’m also like Eben’s Talks and interviews.
By the way do you know this talk from him:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/berlin-keynote.html
I really like it and it describes really well the political movement called Free Software movement.
By the way, if you don’t understand german, the title “die Gedanken sind frei” is a old german song. More information and a translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Gedanken_sind_frei
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/berlin-keynote.html
Seems interesting, thanks for the link.
Perhaps you don’t get it right. It’s not about on which side you are or what’s your opinion on any of these issues.
If someone advocates X, but not Y, he wants to be referred as “X advocate” and not “Y advocate”, especially as the difference matters to _him/her_.
The FSF, and Eben Moglen in person, advocate X, not Y. In fact, they even strongly advocate X versus(!) Y. They strongly advocate to not believe in open-source software, if it’s not also free (as in their definition of free). And they dislike the term open-source as they see it as an attempt to erode their free software movement (and many claim it was indeed formed in this purpose).
So wether you are with them or not, you have to respect this – or will automatically talk against their beliefs.
p.s.: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html is exactly the article I wanted to refer to..
Edited 2007-05-13 15:02
I was always under the impression “free software and open source” were one in the same ! only difference being certain parties re-branded RMS’s original name to something more catchy !
Edited 2007-05-13 01:11
>I was always under the impression “free software and open source” were one in the same.
Than maybe you should read this to understand the differences: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html