[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[GNU-traductores] gnudist:/home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-fr
From: |
gnudist's file diff daemon |
Subject: |
[GNU-traductores] gnudist:/home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html -- recent changes |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:29:00 -0700 (PDT) |
This is an automated report from gnudist.
Recent changes to /home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html:
18 -rw-rw-r-- 1 webcvs www 17071 Jun 13 08:16
/home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
diff -u
/home/diffmon/old_file_dir/gnudist:!home!www!html!philosophy!free-software-for-freedom.html.gz
/home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
--- /tmp/diffmon25110 Thu Jun 14 07:29:00 2001
+++ /home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html Wed Jun 13
08:16:53 2001
@@ -21,12 +21,21 @@
| <A HREF="/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.ru.html">Russian</A> ]
<P>
-Some free software developers have started to use the term <A
-HREF="http://www.opensource.org/">``open source software''</A> instead of <A
-HREF="/philosophy/free-sw.html">``free software''</A>. While free
-software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a
-big difference which name we use: different words <em>convey different
-meanings</em>.
+In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using
+the ternm <A HREF="http://www.opensource.org/">``open source
+software''</A> instead of <A HREF="/philosophy/free-sw.html">``free
+software''</A> to describe what they do.
+<P>
+
+While free software by any other name would give you the same
+freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words
+<em>convey different ideas</em>. The term ``open source'' quickly
+became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy,
+different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses
+are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement are today effectively <A HREF="#relationship"> separate
+movements</A>, although we can and do work together on practical
+projects.
<P>
@@ -43,7 +52,7 @@
HREF="/philosophy/free-sw.html"> more precise definition of free
software</A>, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely
eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better,
-assuming it doesn't have other problems.
+if it didn't have other problems.
<P>
@@ -68,16 +77,42 @@
That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its
advocates intend. (Their ``official'' definition is much closer to
-``free software.'') The result is that people often misunderstand
-them.
+``free software.'') The result is that most people misunderstand what
+they are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined
+``open source'':
+<P>
+
+<quot>
+Linux is "open source" software
+meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.
+</quot>
+
+<P>
+I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the
+``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of
+the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The <A
+HREF="http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf"> state of
+Kansas</A> published a similar definition:
+<P>
+
+<quot>
+Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the
+source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing
+agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.
+</quot>
+
+<P>
+Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by
+publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for
+``free software.''
+<P>
-Of course, this can be addressed by publishing a precise definition
-for the term. The people using ``open source software'' have done
-this, just as we have done for ``free software.'' But this approach
-is only partially effective in either case. For free software, we
-have to teach people that we intend one meaning rather than another
-which fits the words equally well. For open source, we would have to
-teach them to use a meaning which does not really fit at all.
+But the explanation for ``free software'' is simple--a person who has
+heard ``free speech, not free beer'' will not get it wrong again.
+There is no succinct way to explain the official definition meaning of
+``open source'' that will show clearly why the natural definition is
+the wrong one.
+<p>
<H4>Fear of Freedom</H4>
@@ -151,12 +186,13 @@
attempt went awry when the application was allowed to lapse in 1999;
thus, the legal status of ``open source'' is the same as that of
``free software'': there is no <em>legal</em> constraint on using it.
+I have heard reports of a number of companies' calling software
+packages ``open source'' even though they did not fit the official
+definition; I have observed some instances myself.
<P>
But would it have made a big difference to use a term that is a
-trademark? I am not convinced. I heard reports of a number of
-companies' calling software packages ``open source'' even though they
-did not fit the official definition; I observed some instances myself.
+trademark? Not necessarily.
<P>
Companies also made announcements that give the impression that a
@@ -174,7 +210,7 @@
source'', but many readers did not notice that detail. (I should note
that IBM was sincerely trying to make this program free software, and
later adopted a new license which does make it free software and
-``open source''; but when the announcement was made, the program did
+``open source''; but when that announcement was made, the program did
not qualify as either one.)
<P>
@@ -184,29 +220,15 @@
<quot>
Cygnus Solutions is a leader in the open source market and has just
-launched two products into the Linux marketplace.
+launched two products into the [GNU/]Linux marketplace.
</quot>
<P>
Unlike IBM, Cygnus was not trying to make these packages free
software, and the packages did not come close to qualifying. But
Cygnus didn't actually say that these are ``open source software'',
-they just made a vague statement to try to obtain the favorable
-attitude that comes with that term.
-
-<P>
-Individuals also frequently misunderstand the term. Here is how
-writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':
-
-<quot>
-Linux is "open source" software
-meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.
-</quot>
-
-<P>
-I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or argue with the
-``official'' definition. He simply applied the conventions of the
-English language, and reached the natural conclusion.
+they just made use of the term to give careless readers that
+impression.
<P>
These observations suggest that a trademark would not have truly
@@ -220,8 +242,8 @@
The Open Source Definition is clear enough, and it is quite clear that
the typical non-free program does not qualify. So you would think
that ``Open Source company'' would mean one whose products are free
-software, right? Alas, many companies are trying to give it a
-different meaning.
+software (or close to it), right? Alas, many companies are trying to
+give it a different meaning.
<P>
At the ``Open Source Developers Day'' meeting in August 1998, several
@@ -252,12 +274,12 @@
<P>
We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't go
-along with it. These companies actively try to lead the public to
-lump all their activities together; they want us to regard their
-non-free software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution,
-although it is not one. They present themselves as ``open source
-companies,'' hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them,
-and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.
+let us. These companies actively try to lead the public to lump all
+their activities together; they want us to regard their non-free
+software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although
+it is not one. They present themselves as ``open source companies,''
+hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we
+will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.
<P>
This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done
@@ -289,13 +311,12 @@
point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?
<P>
-He did not miss the usual point associated with the term ``open
-source.'' That point says nothing about freedom, it says only that
-allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it
-will make for faster and better development. The executive grasped
-that point completely; unwilling for other reasons to carry out this
-approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it
-partially, within the company.
+He did not miss the point of the open source movement. That point
+says nothing about freedom, it says only that allowing more people to
+look at the source code and help improve it will make for faster and
+better development. The executive grasped that point completely;
+unwilling to carry out this approach in full, users included, he was
+considering implementing it partially, within the company.
<P>
The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was
@@ -314,28 +335,33 @@
movement and Open Source movement</A></H4>
<P>
-The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are
-like two political parties within our community.
+The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two
+political camps within the free software community.
<P>
-Radical groups are known for factionalism: organizations split because
-of disagreements on details of strategy, and then hate each other.
-They agree on the basic principles, and disagree only on practical
-recommendations; but they consider each other enemies, and fight each
-other tooth and nail.
-<P>
-
-For the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement, it is
-just the opposite on every point. We disagree on the basic
-principles, but agree on most practical recommendations. We work
-together on many specific projects.
+Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for factionalism:
+organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
+and then hated each other. They agreed on the basic principles, and
+disagreed only on practical recommendations; but they considered each
+other enemies, and fought tooth and nail. Or at least, such is the
+image people have, whether or not it was accurate.
+<P>
+
+The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open
+Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. 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 <A
+HREF="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"> proprietary
+software</A>.
<P>
-In the Free Software movement, we don't think of the Open Source
-movement as an enemy. The enemy is <A
-HREF="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"> proprietary
-software</A>. But we do want people in our community to know that we
-are not the same as them!
+We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be
+lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our
+community, but we created our community. We want people to associate
+our achievements with our values and our philosophy. We want to be
+heard, not hidden behind a different view.
<P>
So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the
@@ -365,14 +391,14 @@
send other questions to
<A HREF="mailto:address@hidden"><EM>address@hidden</EM></A>.
<P>
-Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA
<P>
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.<P>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2001/04/28 22:15:59 $ $Author: bkuhn $
+$Date: 2001/06/13 15:16:48 $ $Author: rms $
<!-- timestamp end -->
<HR>
</BODY>
- [GNU-traductores] gnudist:/home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html -- recent changes,
gnudist's file diff daemon <=