Does Free Software Taste Great, or is Open Source Less Filling?

4 November 2006

Originally published in Free Software Magazine, 30 October 2006.

Which do you like best: the satisfying, rich taste of principle in free software? Or do you prefer the less morally filling and pragmatic goodness of open source? Do you wish people would stop endlessly rehashing the whole question of "free" versus "open source?" Or do you enjoy the chance to talk about goals and philosophy? As you might suspect, since I'm bringing it up...

...I like to talk about it. Is it too soon, though, following the lengthy debate stirred up by the recent "What should we call it?" FSM poll? Too dividing? Pointless? Do I ask a lot of questions?

Let's turn to our lodestar, Richard Stallman, for some answers. What's that, you say? "That RMS guy is the cause of all the trouble! He's a divider, not a uniter!" I disagree. Emphatically. In reading Richard's essays and listening to his speeches, I see and hear a very consistent and reasonable message: That freedom should come first.

Here's the canonical essay on the subject from the GNU philosophy rack: Why 'Free Software' is better than 'Open Source'. To me, it lays things out very clearly. Among other things, RMS writes:

We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific projects. We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.

That doesn't sound like someone who wants to drive a big wedge between the camps. Although first you might ask if we should say that there are separate camps. Isn't that part of the problem with that kind of language? Aren't we all talking about the same thing, and by constantly harping on the subject, isn't he creating a division where none should exist? I don't think so. Some people may use the terms interchangeably and they may understand the essential freedom that is at stake, but not all.

And I think there is a definite philosophical difference that is demonstrated by current events. There is danger that we might lose ground if people don't value freedom. And! It doesn't seem like harping to me when it is in support of principles. What are we trying to achieve? For those interested in freedom first, it makes sense to highlight the philosophy as much as possible.

I think it's absolutely necessary to be clear on the philosophy, as shown in the GPLv3 discussion. First, let's take a look at a question from a Forbes.com interview with RMS published earlier this year:

Forbes.com: Members of the open source camp tend to describe themselves using words like "pragmatic" and "realistic," while describing the free software camp as being driven by "ideology." Do you think that's a fair description?

Stallman: We in the free software movement are generally as pragmatic and realistic as anyone, in pursuit of our goals. Our methods have been rather effective, as [evidenced by] what we have achieved. Where we differ from the proponents of open source is in what those goals are. The open source viewpoint cites only practical-convenience goals, such as making software powerful and reliable. Our primary goals are freedom and community. We appreciate convenience too, of course, but we do not put that above freedom.

To win freedom for the long term, it is crucial for people to value freedom. If we could hand everyone free software for all jobs today, they would have freedom tomorrow (at least in the use of their computers). But would they still have freedom in five years? If they do not learn to value freedom, they will probably let it slip away. Thus, while the open source camp's strategy of getting corporations interested in releasing free software has contributed important free programs to our community, that approach alone cannot assure our freedom in the long term. Only talking about freedom can do that.

It's similar to what is covered in the GNU essay, but it highlights even more clearly the issue for me, and reinforces the desire to keep talking about this. If people don't value freedom, they won't stand up for it. And look what we have going on today with the GPLv3 debate: some people are upset about the anti-DRM clause and what effect it might have. (Disclaimer: I'm not following the debate closely. Instead I trust the Free Software Foundation to promote our interests in freedom.)

With the anti-DRM clause, we're seeing some heated discussions about how corporations will be affected and how they might respond. There are some who talk about the millions and billions of dollars that companies have riding on "open source" software and that there is too much at stake to be letting the "radical" FSF make all these "anti-commercial" decisions.

Some of these people are philosophically against all free software, but seeing that they're losing ground in the battle, have chosen to stake themselves to the old license and try to cause dissension by crying foul at the new provisions.

Other people may believe in free software, more or less, but they've taken the more practical view of the open source philosophy. They may appreciate the contributions of the GNU project, but are afraid its leader, RMS, will be too unpalatable to their new corporate masters. They may even agree that DRM is a bad thing, but they are more worried about losing business credibility and the support of corporations. Their desire for open source to prosper is stronger than their belief in freedom, and they may be more likely to want to try an appeasement strategy.

No way. Let's not do this. Let's not get off the freedom train so soon. The Free Software Foundation has been nurturing this vision along for so many years, and a little commercial success doesn't change the ultimate goal. I'm unable to articulate very well what I see as the problem here: that this vision of free software and a free society has grown steadily for so many years, but because we've gone through a spurt of rapid growth thanks to corporations realizing one aspect of the value of free software (its low cost and power), suddenly people want to say the FSF's approach is no longer relevant. That they're clinging to some outmoded and unrealistic ideal. Bah. Let's keep talking about it, and try to help people understand what the true goal is. One more time, where Mr. Stallman says it better than me:

Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help. That's why we stick to the term "free software" in the GNU Project, so we can help do that job. If you feel that freedom and community are important for their own sake--not just for the convenience they bring--please join us in using the term "free software".

And that's why I use and promote the term, Free Software.

Afterword: On Corporations

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying corporations are evil. Most of us earn our paychecks doing honest work for them. They are us. Doing business through corporations is largely how we've chosen to organize our economic activity. But by necessity, they often look at the present and the future very narrowly; unable to see the benefit of disruption. Free software is very disruptive and therefore threatening to established businesses. That's why I think the Free Software Foundation is right to discount business considerations in furthering the cause of freedom. And of course, despite the shrill cry of critics, the FSF can't force anyone to do anything, except to comply with the terms of the licenses they've already agreed to.

by Scott Carpenter on 4 November 2006 at 4:30 am
permalink | comments (5) | filed under free software
tagged: fsm, richard stallman, words

Comments

It's actually quite a tricky paradigm shift from open to free.

OPEN: The GPL is ideal for collaborative, publicly visible software development.

FREE: The GPL undoes copyright's suspension of the public's liberty, i.e. to build upon published software.

Perhaps if you're focussed on the pragmatic aspects of collaborative software development, the principles that gave rise to the GPL aren't uppermost in your mind.

It's tricky pointing out to people that patents and copyright aren't actually precious cufflinks to be treasured as if a gift from one's father, but manacles.

I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for the publication of my art.

Posted by Crosbie Fitch on 4 November 2006 at 5:53 am

I like your comment about cuff links and manacles. Another thing that seems to get overlooked is that copyright is a bargain between society and individual creators, and one that keeps getting worse for society all the time. People now look at copyright that gives all power to the individual for long periods of time as a natural and inalienable right. I'm all for individual empowerment, but we're talking about a common culture, where no one creates in a vacuum. The individual's empowerment shouldn't enslave others use of this culture, as you point out.

(And let's not going in to the special problem with software, where once copyright finally runs out, we'll have irretrievably lost much of our early computer legacy due to obsolescence, to the great loss of culture. Not a good return to society.)

I think about this monopoly power in relation to music. I'd be happy to pay for music what I think is a reasonable rate for a downloaded file sans DRM: $0.25 to $0.50. I'm sure some people would object to me defining what is reasonable and under what conditions I may copy and use it, claiming that it is not up to me, and that if I don't like the conditions, no one is forcing me to download it.

But of course music isn't perfectly substituted with other kinds of music. If I want to "own" copies of songs from the 70s and the 80s that I grew up with and that have nostalgic value to me, my options are limited. I think that as a member of the society that makes this bargain about copyright, I should have some say in how I might consume this common culture.

Posted by Scott Carpenter on 4 November 2006 at 11:37 am

Thanks, Scott. You write beautifully. I will have to read this a few more times. I know there is a split of some sort but I have to admit, it seems more like a fine point than a wide chasm.

I believe the freedom (as in liberty) - of information (and software and documentation) is a worthy and noble pursuit that I am obviously after. But, I believe the open source and free software sides both want this and both sides understand that even technical people must eat. So, I am honestly at a loss what the fuss is all about. (I realize this admission identifies me as a heretic, but, I must admit, I am where I am in my understanding.)

I do get a bit worried when I hear someone describe their position as “pragmatic” and “realistic.” To me it signals compromise. Of what? I have no idea.

Posted by Amy Stephen on 7 November 2006 at 11:54 pm

Hi, Amy! Of course on some level it can be seen as a fairly minor difference, and many/most of the people who use and endorse the term "open source" believe in the idea of software freedom just as strongly, but I think the ideological component of this movement is important and people start to deemphasize it in favor of near-term convenience and business acceptance. So that's why I prattle on about it. Sometimes I'll take the opportunity to bring it up in conversation, but I don't think I'll ever be quite as much of a stickler as RMS about it.

But! I agree with Stallman when he says that it's important for people to value freedom or they may let it slip away. I like that he makes it into a big deal.

It's kind of like this country--the positive election results notwithstanding--people seem more interested in convenience and (imagined) security than in civil liberties.

Posted by Scott Carpenter on 8 November 2006 at 7:08 am

The philosophical debate of free vs open has become so entrenched in the verbage it lost sight of where it was going. Of course its nice to have things for free, but to sacrifice usability and output is ridiculous on the base of ideology. For instance, why go with a free edi software if you know there is a more practical solution that is open sourced. I just don't get it!

Posted by P Roberts on 23 September 2008 at 2:36 pm

You can follow any responses to this entry through the
comments feed.