Open Source is NOT RMS's invention

Posted Nov 21, 2005 22:23 UTC (Mon) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)
In reply to: Open Source is NOT RMS's invention by felixfix
Parent article: Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

I was thinking of posting a similar comment, then I read Bruce's speech at the same link above. This part caught my eye:

I am honored to follow Doctor Richard Stallman, the giant upon whose shoulders Open Source stands. When I say Open Source, I mean the same thing that Richard means when he says Free Software. There has been factionalism, but only because of personalities that no longer matter.

Open Source is NOT RMS's invention

Posted Nov 22, 2005 13:09 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (6 responses)

When I say Open Source, I mean the same thing that Richard means when he says Free Software.

That's very funny. Being a pragmatic kind of guy, I would say that this should be applicable to any two people except Stallman and Perens. (Well, ESR is a given.)

Now, in my book, being pragmatic in this case does not mean: ignore that there actually is a difference between Free Software and Open Source software. So I'm not quite sure how to interpret Bruce's statement.

Open Source is NOT RMS's invention

Posted Nov 22, 2005 15:22 UTC (Tue) by arafel (subscriber, #18557) [Link] (5 responses)

Well, fair's fair - I don't understand your first paragraph either. :-)

I'd interpret Bruce's statement as exactly what he said, to be honest - that by "open source" he (not necessarily anyone else) means "free software". It seems like a way to try and bring the two 'factions' closer together, which is probably worth a shot.

Open Source is NOT RMS's invention

Posted Nov 22, 2005 23:49 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (4 responses)

Well, fair's fair - I don't understand your first paragraph either. :-)

;-)

I'm quite sure that RMS doesn't share Bruce's sentiments regarding the relation between Open Source software and Free Software. To me, Bruce's statement suggests otherwise. And the thing is, of all people, Bruce should know that, because he was involved in defining "Open Source". He can't afford to neglect the difference, because he's defined it. Look at the Open Source definition. Note that it repeats the statement.

Subtle.

Free Software and Open SOurce

Posted Nov 23, 2005 8:42 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (3 responses)

When I wrote the OSD, then called the Debian Free Software Guidelines, Richard blessed it as a good definition of Free Software. He was not prompted to construct another definition of Free Software until some years later when he felt the need to differentiate it from Open Source.

My intent was always that Open Source be a gentle introduction to Richard's viewpoint for business people. I was horrified that Eric took it in another direction, and that he chose to directly deprecate Richard and his efforts.

I'll leave it to you to decide which personality has of late become irrelevant :-)

Bruce

Free Software and Open SOurce

Posted Nov 23, 2005 11:57 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (2 responses)

He was not prompted to construct another definition of Free Software until some years later when he felt the need to differentiate it from Open Source.

But isn't it because of statements like the one we're discussing here that RMS feels the need to accentuate the difference between the definitions of Free Software and Open Source software? (I have lost track now of who is redefining what and to what purpose, to be honest. ;-)

Could you explain it a bit, please? What exactly do you mean when you say that, to you, Free Software and Open Source software are the same thing, given the two different definitions? (I'll stress it again: your own definitions, yours and RMS's.) And what's the purpose?

If it's really just a matter of "What name is the better one, Open or Free?", let's not beat around the bush then and spread the word -- any word. ;-) Or, if the OSD is merely meant to emphasise or explain aspects of Free Software that are of interest to business people, why not choose a proper name for it? One that stresses the practical implications of the foundation laid down by the Free Software definition, i.e. something to do with methodology, not software, for instance -- layer your definitions properly.

(And, uhm, if this is nothing more than a "my definition is bigger than yours" powertrip: drop it, drop it now. It makes you look quite stupid -- both of you, whether it's your own doing, or the other's. Accept the fact that you cannot control everything, least of all the way people interpret things; the word "free" has a third meaning now, you know: free as in "free software". Think about that.)

By the way: ironically, business people are not at all afraid of rebranding, if it makes sense. What they do not like, however, is uncertainty.

Free Software and Open SOurce

Posted Nov 23, 2005 13:19 UTC (Wed) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] (1 responses)

Chess vs. poker.
The GPL insists that all source code information remain in plain sight in the market at all times. There is an implicit community spirit.
BSD(ish) licenses support greater vendor control of the market, by allowing information to escape plain sight.
In a private email, RMS admonished me not to confuse 'freedom' with 'power'. BSD(ish) licensing, one might argue, gives a vendor inordinate power, which may or may not be used in a nefarious way in the market.

Free Software and Open SOurce

Posted Nov 23, 2005 22:17 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Chess vs. poker.

I can't really follow you, so forgive me if this seems a bit dense to you.

Comparing Free Software to Open Source software is not the same as comparing the GPL to the BSD license. Technically, Free Software is a subset of Open Source software, which shows you immediately that comparisons between the two can't be inverted thoughtlessly: all Free Software is also Open Source software, but not all Open Source software is Free Software.

The gap is wider in a non-technical sense. The Free Software definition serves to enforce the rights of users by restricting those of distributors. The Open Source definition tries to make a bit of a U-turn by focusing on distributors' rights. There's nothing wrong with that of course, and it's understandable if you take into account its history (the Debian Free Software Guidelines) -- it's just not exactly the same.

If that was what you meant, well, I agree. ;-)

(And please, let's not get into another flamewar about the interpretation of the term "rights". ;-)