Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Posted Dec 12, 2021 10:33 UTC (Sun) by ldearquer (guest, #137451)
In reply to: Linux Foundation 2021 annual report by khim
Parent article: Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

> > -Absolutely. The notion that you can take open source software, and do things with it that were never planned by its original creators, and use them in surprising ways is really the core idea of open source.

If the main difference between "free software" and "open source" is that with "open source" you can ship closed binaries/devices to the end users, then this sentence seems a bit contradictory to me.

Because the "notion that you can take open source software, and do things with it that were never planned by its original creators" is certainly good for end users too.

I am not saying user freedom is the absolute good on Earth, and I think there may be reasons to prevent it on some devices. But these cases apart, and if you think this "notion" is good, what is the upside of "open source" vs "free software"?

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Posted Dec 12, 2021 12:01 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (7 responses)

I'm not saying it's an unalloyed benefit, but as soon as somebody takes BSD and puts it in a closed product, it ceases to be Open Source :-)

Which then adds a definite cost to the closed source people.

And Open source also permits Open Core. Which actually describes GPL products like Ghostscript. And I don't know the base licence of CUPS but I believe that has no problem with Open Core. LibreOffice is MPL, which permits Open Core.

And while Open Core has a bad rap, it enables the production of add-ons that wouldn't otherwise be viable.

The big difference between Open Source and Free Software is the mindset behind it. Free Software wants "all software to be free". Open Source is far more pragmatic - "developers have to eat".

Cheers,
Wol

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Posted Dec 12, 2021 21:34 UTC (Sun) by tpo (subscriber, #25713) [Link] (6 responses)

> The big difference between Open Source and Free Software is the mindset behind it. Free Software wants "all software to be free". Open Source is far more pragmatic - "developers have to eat".

I'd say that characterisation is missing it.

It /is/ possible get food on the table with Free Software, there's enough evidence for that. Though under some conditions it might turn out to be too tough to do so.

The difference is I'd say in the original founding FS anecdote: RMS fixed a bug in printer SW. The company took his fix and denied him further tinkering with it. Never again said RMS.

Open Source means you can see how it works. But you can't necessarily change it. Neither you can necessarily copy it.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Posted Dec 13, 2021 5:34 UTC (Mon) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link] (3 responses)

The Open Source Definition disagrees with your definition of open source.

https://opensource.org/osd

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Posted Dec 13, 2021 14:11 UTC (Mon) by ldearquer (guest, #137451) [Link] (2 responses)

I think you are missng the context here.

This came from discussing that open source may allow you to ship closed binaries/devices whereas free software doesn't

(I know this wording is not technically correct, because once you ship a closed thing, it doesn't qualify as open source anymore, and even free software is itself a subgroup of open source, but I hope it's clear enough :)

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Posted Dec 13, 2021 15:29 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (1 responses)

> This came from discussing that open source may allow you to ship closed binaries/devices whereas free software doesn't

The wording here is confusing. This distinction should just be permissive vs copyleft (or reciprocal) licenses.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Posted Dec 13, 2021 17:33 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

> This distinction should just be permissive vs copyleft (or reciprocal) licenses.

If free software guys would have been winning then I'm sure an attempt to change the terms would have been made.

Unfortunately they are losing and the only reason free software is around at all is because they are willing to tolerate non-copyleft software and are all too eager to appropriate achievements of open-source camp and [try to] paint them as achievement of free software movement.

Changing the definition is not possible in such an environment: it would expose the true state of affairs.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Posted Dec 13, 2021 9:07 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (1 responses)

Open Source means you can see how it works. But you can't necessarily change it. Neither you can necessarily copy it.

According to the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition, that's not true:

“Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.”
“The license must allow modification and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.”
“The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.”
“The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code.”

(Note that the OSD doesn't say that you must be able to deploy an updated Linux kernel on your tivoised refrigerator. But for the longest time “free software” has been suffering from the same problem. You need to go to the latest version of the GPL to see this addressed, and there is still plenty of “free software” around that is GPLv2-only.)

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Posted Dec 13, 2021 18:52 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

You are barking on the wrong tree. Free Software difference is not about licenses. It's about the ideology (heck, they, themselves, explain difference better than me). Whileas free software guys think about how to make sure user would get less freedom to tinker with the device they own open source guys go and create things which people, then, actually use (because they can buy or download them).

For open source guy the decision about whether to release something as open source or proprietary is question of practicality and usability but for free software simple move from AOSP to Google Play services is something they be ready to lynch the offender.

But yeah, after open source guys organize everything, talk to the companies which make proprietary software and hardware and produce things… free software guys often start talking about how open source licenses and free software licenses are one and the same and how that means free software and open source software is the same and how that means open source guys should stop cooperating with everyone else and start pushing for the world without non-free software.

Some free software guys are sane and understand that last highlighted “that” is not follow-up for anything else (only a desire of free software movement), some (these are the ones I call “free software zealots”) insist that it's “natural” and that “opens source guys” are just “simply uneducated”.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Posted Dec 13, 2021 18:34 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

> But these cases apart, and if you think this "notion" is good, what is the upside of "open source" vs "free software"?

The upside is simple: software which exists is always better than software which doesn't exist.

Free software camp in their jihad against non-free software often achieves not the nirvana of plentiful software which everyone can use, but makes certain things just impossible.

Remember that paranoid refusal to provide plugin mechanism for GCC? It took years and creation an open-source alternative before plugins become available (and CLion uses CLang and not GCC for obvious reason).

Basically position of free software guys: we would try to give you OpenMoko, fail and when you would be deciding what to use — iPhone or Windows Phone, we would tell you many times how great is it to have source for the software you use (and which you don't have).

At least that would be the situation an the world without open source guys.

Of course in our world, after free software guys would, inevitably, fail and Open Source guys will succeed (with Android — developed in secret in cooperation with, you know, handset developers and nasty mobile operators who insist on control over devices) they would do a 180° turn and say, that hey, Android is free software, too (as least AOSP one) thus we can, absolutely, claim that free software is on winning spray and pressure these nasty guys who did all the work (but refused to join our jihad against non-free software) to play by our rules.

IOW: free software zealots try to pretend that we could have a choice between OpenMoko and iPhone while open source guys know that an attempt to push for that choice would mean, in reality, choice between iPhone and Windows Phone and go and make Android.

That is the power of open source. It allows you to create things.