open vs. free
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Libervis Mar 09, 2006 2:58 PM EDT |
It seems to me that the term "open" is becoming even more meaningless and ambiguous than the word "free". I'm sure though that if OpenDocument was called FreeDocument instead or if open source just stayed "Free Software" Microsoft would probably try to devalue the term "free" too. However, one might wonder.. what if the whole "open source" brand got a little over itself? I mean, what if it became in a way too much of a "buzzword" to be taken seriously anymore? The OSI pushed it mostly as a *brand name* before anything else afterall. I of course don't agree a movement has to have a brand name, at least if you think of it as a movement for human rights for computer users. (Well.. "open source" isn't presenting itself as that either.) Just some thoughts. Thanks Daniel |
| tadelste Mar 09, 2006 6:06 PM EDT |
Daniel, I've seen the concept of open standards for longer than I'd like to admit. I worked with software from the old OSF as a tech writer at IBM. I don't think "open" needs to be replaced with free. That's a stretch IMHO. Compared to free software, proprietary code swamps us in usage. As long as that's reality, open seems like a good first step. I still know people who think Linux is an air conditioner company. So, maybe saying GNU/Linux isn't such a bad idea. |
| phil Mar 09, 2006 6:27 PM EDT |
Something can be open without being free. We might have all the specifications needed to implement something using a given format. But if we don't also have the rights to do that implementation, then it's not free. What patents might apply to technology utilized in a format which Microsoft chooses to release for all to read the specifications? Remember that GIF was a format and LZW was patented. GIF was open. LZW was not free. Ultimately, we need both. "Free Open Source Softwae" has both. It might be nice for a like term for format specifications. But in the mean time, I do think we know what is really meant when someone says "an open document format". |
| Libervis Mar 10, 2006 2:54 AM EDT |
I agree definitely with the term "Free Open Source Software" for those who just don't want yet to choose between the two terms or don't want to identify themselves with either philosophy. That said, I am a supporter of the Free Software movement, not Open Source, because I think it is an ethical issue beyond other issues and because I also think we shouldn't use a misleading term just because it sounds better and might attract more people in. Our goal, at least those of the Free Software movement is to teach people the value of freedom and make it possible for them to be free by writing Free Software, not merely increase the marketshare of GNU/Linux. Well, that's where I stand at least. |
| tadelste Mar 10, 2006 7:52 AM EDT |
Daniel, I would characterize myself as a supporter of the free software movement. I feel that the concept of open-source misleads people. I'm also pragmatic about the state of the world. I don't believe the concept of "Open" has evil intentions. I think people who embrace the open concept are oblivious to the argument. So, in my pragmatic approach, I think the effort to make software open was a decent step for proprietary to have gone. Now for my speech about open source which I delineate from free software. The term open-source is abusive. OSI gave the CDDL an OK. That demonstrates their ignorance and caused Sun to run off at the mouth believing they were an open-source company in terms of offering free software. They had bought their own BS. Or to put it another way, they believe their own lies. Also, companies claim to be open-source like Autodesk. They denigrate the notion of free software with the term open source. I feel the same for CA. they claim they're a Linux company. But, I don't think they get it at all. I heard CA's Sam Greenblatt make a presentation and if they're a Linux company, the George Washington was a general in the British Army fight the Colonies. But they're open source because the gave away the failing Ingres Database I don't think understanding and dealing with reality means one has failed in their embrace of open source software. if you wish to take a stand, you have my support. You've never had anything but my support. I choose another approach. That's where we differ. |
| Libervis Mar 10, 2006 1:02 PM EDT |
I'm not sure if I fully understand your comment Tom. To give it a shot, I'd say you wanted to express that you primarily do support Free Software as well as its ethical principles, but still think that initiating "open source", although not necessarily the best, was a step up to getting rid of proprietary software even if the very term "open source" is so easily abused by the corporate world. Now, I don't necessarily consider the concept of open source evil either. It just focuses on the perceived outcome of creating Free Software, which is better software, and call it a (superior) software development methodology. We could say that they put their focus on the result instead of the cause and the cause is (in both contexts of the word) freedom. I disagree with Open Source supporters because I think that the cause is more important than its results. Freedom is more important than the better software that may get created because of it. Talking about branding, if "open source" was used as a term to describe the same Free Software ideology of GNU instead of the rather apolitical one, it may even be acceptable as a positive buzzword working for computing freedom (even if still vulnerable to abuse). It however never was *just* about changing the term. It was about changing the whole philosophy shifting focus to something else entirely and away from where it initially was. It is probably true however that some today use the term "open source" in context of describing freedom and ethical issues which is probably the result of the increasing vagueness of the term (it starts to mean too many things). However, even many of those who do use it in such context often don't understand the whole issue properly. They don't yet see the danger of mixing proprietary and Free Software for example. It's like they got parts of both philosophies and have settled somewhere in the middle. They are not apolitical, but don't have a full understanding of the political issues either. They still don't help further the cause of freedom as much as they could. So when "open source" is an increasingly vague, confusing and devalued term in addition to its own inherent flaw of describing only the availability of the source code and not the whole set of essential rights/requirements, it seems to me that the term "Free Software" could actually end up being more applicable and descriptive than "open source" while "libre software" may be perfect (both do more to further the true cause than "open source") :) Thanks Daniel |
| jimf Mar 10, 2006 1:18 PM EDT |
Lol Tom, You just 'mentioned' Autodesk in the same sentience as open, and, I found myself automatically foaming at the mouth. If you'd also included something like 'Engineering' or 'tool'... well, I probably would have lost it ;-). Not only is that company one of the worst offenders against open anything, but, they are one of the least creative programs in existance. Must have set Engineering back at least 50 years... Their logo should be 'Every day, making Engineering a little more propritary and obtuse'. |
| tadelste Mar 10, 2006 1:22 PM EDT |
Daniel, I would say you did mostly get the gist of my statement with this exception, I don't think initiating open source was a step up to getting rid of proprietary software nor to I consider it acceptable. I think if Eric et al would have just left it alone, we'd be much better off. GNU/Linux would have done as well as it has, maybe better and the other camps could have violated the GPL or embraced the principles. I think people would make a more distinct comparison between proprietary and free and wouldn't live on the fringes. That would have created a clearer choice. I view free software like I do voting day at the polls. I can vote for either a democrat or republican because one of them will win. I can vote for a Libertarian or an independent and I know they won't win. So, I wind up voting for what I consider the least harmful. Then, it's up to me to attempt to make changes in the established system. Quoting:It is probably true however that some today use the term "open source" in context of describing freedom and ethical issues which is probably the result of the increasing vagueness of the term (it starts to mean too many things). However, even many of those who do use it in such context often don't understand the whole issue properly. And we agree again. However, I do feel like the people who exhibit the traits of freedom and ethics will "get it" eventually as the term gets abused more and more. I see a problem since advocates rarely get into the sales channel to see how it is already massively abused. |
| tadelste Mar 10, 2006 1:25 PM EDT |
jimf: I may have mentioned it, but I used it as an example of an abuser of the term. |
| jimf Mar 10, 2006 1:33 PM EDT |
Tom, I got the meaning of the post, and, the example was valid. My response to the word as an Engineer was purely pablovian :D |
| tadelste Mar 10, 2006 1:41 PM EDT |
Jim, ROFL. You got me. |
| Libervis Mar 10, 2006 4:40 PM EDT |
Tom, then we mostly agree as it seems.Quoting:I view free software like I do voting day at the polls. I can vote for either a democrat or republican because one of them will win. I can vote for a Libertarian or an independent and I know they won't win. So, I wind up voting for what I consider the least harmful You mean you'd vote for lesser of the two evils, just to make sure the bigger doesn't win? That certainly makes sense, but if it is an analogy I think it hardly fits the current Free Software vs. Open Source vs. proprietary software situation. Between "Open Source" and proprietary software Open Source is definitely the lesser "evil", but I wouldn't vote for either if there is a choice of Free Software (philosophy) which I believe is not evil at all. Here you are not limited to one mandate and practically forced to make the best of that mandate period for your country. In reality it would be the best choice to vote for Free Software and increase its chance of winning, ultimately. Anything else would only be more harmful than not for the cause you believe in. Quoting: However, I do feel like the people who exhibit the traits of freedom and ethics will "get it" eventually as the term gets abused more and more. Yes, I fully agree. I was introduced to the whole FOSS thing mostly through the term "Open Source", but what really attracted me from the beginning were its ethical principles. As soon as I've read enough of GNU.org and RMS's speeches and therefore understood the difference and the importance of identifying with the philosophy I care for the most I started using the term Free Software and not Open Source to differentiate my position. I think many of others who are really attracted to the ethical principles of it will end up the same. Thanks Daniel |
| jdixon Mar 10, 2006 8:27 PM EDT |
Tom: Stepping into political theory for the moment (not politics as such :) ). > I can vote for either a democrat or republican because one of them will win. I can vote for a Libertarian or an independent and I know they won't win. So, I wind up voting for what I consider the least harmful. I know that my vote will not make the difference in who gets elected either way, so I'm perfectly comfortable in "throwing away" my vote. And since, from a libertarian perspective, there is no effective difference between the two major parties any more, it really doesn't matter to me who wins. So I usually vote third party. If either of the two parties would return to their small government roots, I would vote for them, but not until. If the choice was actually only between the Republicans and the Democrats, I'd simply stay home. |
| grouch Mar 18, 2006 10:23 AM EDT |
I prefer the term FLOSS, but which term I use depends upon the context. FLOSS -- Free Libre Open Source Software -- encompasses the philosophy and the familiar, but redundant, "Open Source" term. Besides, 'FLOSS' lends itself to such catchy phrases as: FLOSS to get the bad stuff out! FLOSS to prevent rot! FLOSS prevents diseased software. It provides an opening to talk about FSF, GNU and the importance of the 4 freedoms. |
| chappaquachap Mar 18, 2006 2:08 PM EDT |
"Open Source" has a very specific meaning -- just search for "open source" at google. The first hit -- at least right now -- is http://www.opensource.org , The Open Source Initiative (OSI). Code is considered "open source" if it is released under a license approved the OSI. Indeed, "Open Source" is a trademark of OSI. |
| grouch Mar 18, 2006 2:58 PM EDT |
No, it's not a trademark. OSI tried that early on and failed. |
| Libervis Mar 18, 2006 3:43 PM EDT |
That opensource.org comes up at google as first result doesn't mean that open source term does not have an increasingly vague meaning (and by that I mean it has an increasingly meaningless meaning :).
It is being (ab)used for too many things and people start considering too many things to be "open source" and that is diluting the term and it's meaning. And what can OSI do about that? It is in fact themselves that layed the foundation for that to happen. They were the ones who wanted to come up with an appealing buzzword to slap on their "business friendly" philosophy. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!