Hari's Corner

Humour, comics, tech, law, software, reviews, essays, articles and HOWTOs intermingled with random philosophy now and then

Why I think Free Software and Open Source ideas can never reconcile

Filed under: Software and Technology by Hari
Posted on Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 13:22 IST (last updated: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 @ 11:31 IST)

One of those long standing issues that almost never make it to mainstream headlines, but continue to be debated on online forums and communities by hardcore hackers as well as free software/open source supporters is the ideological and practical differences between Free Software as espoused by Richard M. Stallman and his GNU/FSF movement and the Open Source Initiative, co-founded and initially presided over by Eric S. Raymond and Bruce Perens as a reaction against what they perceived as an impractical moral and excessively preachy, pseudo-religious philosophy espoused by Stallman in promoting the message of software freedom. Indeed a lot of online debates seem to indicate that:

To be fair, the official stance of Open Source leaders seem to reinforce the above views: that Open Source's goals aren't really different from Free Software and that the main goals are compatible. (read the reactions and comments section below).

But having seen these debates over the years, particularly on internet forums and newsgroups, I have long been wondering why there is so much heat and vehemence between the two camps when their eventual goals appear to be the same. After all, both Free Software and Open Source have similar practical effects, right? The differences are mainly superficial, right? So far as I could judge, I couldn't figure it out. Until recently, that is. The thought struck me that, after all, Free Software and Open Source are completely different in all aspects, except the common methodologies they use. The fundamental motivations are different. The eventual goals are also different. There is very little in common in principle except that a lot of Open Source supporters also agree with some of the Free Software ideals and vice versa.

In this flowchart below, I've tried my best to crystallize and highlight what I feel are the fundamental differences between Free Software and Open Source. I will also explain why I think some of the differences are irreconcilable and why the more ideological supporters of FSF and OSI will never see eye to eye on certain issues.

Free Software vs Open Source

Mind you, the above flowchart is somewhat simplistic in the sense that there are a lot of people in either camp who tend to agree with the views of the other side. For many developers, in fact, the goals don't matter, even and neither do the underlying philosophies. What matters is their contribution to the pool of open source and free software available out there. To many, these issues are not important and worthy of debate or discussion. But it is very important, in my view, to know why Free Software and Open Source are so different and why the eventual goal differences do matter.

To this effect, I have read a lot of essays online and also turned out a few interviews of both Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond (these two being the principal ideologues of their respective movements). I have left out Linus Torvalds because Linus Torvalds is basically an engineer and seems not to care much about the philosophical side of these debates, preferring instead to focus on the immediate practical benefits of Open Source. In fact, a recent essay by Eric Raymond on Richard Stallman is quite eye-opening, but slightly misleading. ESR claims that the eventual goals are essentially the same but RMS being a fanatic makes the difference, but a lot of the comments were illuminating to me. The whole discussion has shed a new light on the issue as far as I am concerned and I think that the reason why FSF and OSI might never reconcile their differences is because the eventual goals appear to be incompatible, even irreconcilable.

I think the clincher is the fact that one of FSF's goals is that the concepts of ownership of software and its associated rights have to completely die out in a civilized and free world. Free Software is all about complete availability of source code and empowerment of the end user to do what he/she wishes with his/her software and hardware. To this end, the GPL was created and ironically the GPL uses the very concept of copyright to enforce its clauses. For Free Software, there can be no compromise with proprietary systems whatsoever, since proprietary ownership and control of software is seen to be as the enemy of user empowerment and freedom. Thus for RMS and his supporters, there is no question whatsoever of wooing the proprietary software firms or presenting them with a more "palatable" formula. The eventual goal is empowerment and total freedom of software users, but only by eliminating proprietary software in almost all fields. I say almost, because there are obviously certain specialized fields, that use software, where the consumers/users don't really come into the picture.

Open Source's goals are quite a bit different and not necessarily compatible with those of Free Software. From what I've read, I have come to conclude that the Open Source movement is primarily interested in the spread of Open Source code in all software; including those developed by proprietary software companies and slowly making them dependent on open source contributions, even while not enforcing copyleft and sharing. The idea is to make Open Source attractive to those companies that have hitherto stuck to closed source, restrictive licenses and secrecy in development. This is why Open Source advocates tend to push for a more permissive license which allows their code to be used even in closed source applications. To open source advocates, the important thing is the adoption of open source and its consequences: better development methodologies, open standards, standards compliance, more choices for the end user and eventually higher quality, reliable software. Open Source advocates don't hate the concept of software ownership, but they would prefer you to license your software under an open source license because it is simply a better way to develop and release software. While OSI emphasizes these aspects, they also highlight that, in the end, this empowers the end user by offering choice, better quality of software and open standards which prevent vendor lock-in. However, the OSI way is to allow the market to determine how software companies eventually make the switch to open source.

Thus reduced to a simple form: the Open Source advocate says, "I choose to open source my code for practical reasons and out of my own convictions. I don't need to be told to share. But equally I am not going to force my end users/other developers to share the enhancements they make to my code or license it as per my requirements. They can use it as they wish without any restrictions whatsoever, which is my idea: to increase the adoption of Open Source, spread its benefits and convince everybody to adopt it for pragmatic reasons. Who is this Richard Stallman and his crowd to tell me or any other person how I should license my code?" The Free Software advocate, while not disagreeing with a permissive license in principle, is quick to point out that the only way to make sure everybody eventually benefits is to use a copyleft license thus making sure that the code including its modifications/changes by third parties are available to every user downstream. For the Free Software activist, to even allow the corporates to benefit, however little, from Free Software while not being obliged to give back the enhancements or modifications used in a proprietary product is an unmitigated defeat a weak defense for user freedoms in the sense that such a behaviour does not in any way advance the goals of the movement. And the Free Software activist is equally quick to point out that naively relying on the market forces is foolishness. No profit-making software company would see enough benefit or revenue in adopting Open Source to convince them to go that route and even if they do, it would still be a compromise so long as there are strings attached. The Open Source fan would say that, that is of no consequence. So long as the adoption of and dependence on Open Source continues, the benefits will accrue, even if slowly.

In effect, I think the goals of the two movements are not reconcilable, even though, in practice many Open Source and Free Software developers collaborate freely on many projects and contribute to the net sum of free and open source software in the community. Thankfully, the community mainly focuses on the common aspects and immediate benefits of the two, while ignoring the differences, though occasionally the debates get heated. This is why many people have now started using terms like FOSS, FLOSS and libre software as a practical label without identifying solely with either of the movements.

And finally, to 90% of the passive end users, these distinctions don't even matter one bit. Most software users are not programmers and they couldn't be bothered whether the source code was available or not, even if they were aware of the issue in the first place. While some educated software users do indeed have a vague idea of the benefits of Free and Open Source software, they would most likely not understand or even bother about the finer distinctions anyway.

I hope this article has thrown some little light on Free Software and Open Source. If I have made any errors or mistakes, I would be glad if those could be pointed out. :)

Reactions and comments:

ESR says, from his blog here:

There is a significant error in this essay. You describe less convergence than actually exists. My goals are not very different from RMS’s; they only look different because of the arguments I choose to focus on as a matter of tactics. I don’t think I am unusual in this respect.

RMS says, via e-mail:

The two philosophies are fundamentally different, as you say.

However, we do not believe that use of a non-copyleft free license is a "defeat".  It is weak in defending freedom, so it is usually a mistaken choice (though in some special situations there are strategic reasons why it is right).  Nonetheless, a non-copylefted free program is a lot better than no program at all.  By contrast, a proprietary program, one whose price is your freedom, is worse than no program.

My main disagreement is with the part at the end that identifies what nonprogrammer users know about with what they _can_ care about.

Most computer users don't know about the issue of free software (though they may have heard of open source) -- but it affects them very much.  Free software allows the users to control the software, both individually and collectively.  That collective control is a defense against malware.  The users who are programmers protect the whole community (including the nonprogrammers) by protecting themselves.  See http://www.bostonreview.net/BR33.2/stallman.php.

Just because someone isn't a programmer doesn't mean he can't understand the ethical/political issue if he hears about it.  You don't need to be a programmer to care about freedom.  I know quite a few people who support free software as a matter of liberty without being interested in reading any source code.  (These include government officials in a number of countries, and at least two presidents.)  Open source arguments may sway geeks and some high tech executives, but the only way to convince others is with the ethical arguments of free software.

11 comment(s)

  1. I believe you missed a "point of importance and ultimate goal" of the open source movement: to preserve and enhance the market for proprietary software.

    On that goal, free software and open source are diametrically opposed.

    Comment by Thomas Lord (visitor) on Mon, Jun 18, 2012 @ 10:20 IST #
  2. Thanks, Thomas Lord. Apparently ESR disagrees with that, but a lot of OSS supporters indeed do consider Free Software as an enemy rather than Closed Source/Proprietary software.

    Comment by Hari (blog owner) on Mon, Jun 18, 2012 @ 10:24 IST #
  3. Have a look at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html by RMS 2007.

    Comment by simon (visitor) on Wed, Jun 20, 2012 @ 00:19 IST #
  4. Simon, yes, that article was one of my references.

    Comment by Hari (blog owner) on Wed, Jun 20, 2012 @ 08:30 IST #
  5. So the essential difference is more a matter of economics and politics. One extremist refuses any rights to producers of software, the other gives them carte blanche. In the absence of any credible balancing system, abuses abound.
    Looking to absolutists hawking "intellectual property rights" (slavery by any name still stinks) clearly isn't going to help, but designing a balanced system isn't simple. Lawyers thrive on arguments over fairness. Bureaucracies tasked with oversight suffer human failings. Absolute monopolies without oversight encourage abuses, rarely delivering adequate value.
    Clearly, we need something better than patents or copyrights, or outright community theft of software developer services.

    Comment by Justa Notha (visitor) on Sun, Sep 2, 2012 @ 02:40 IST #
  6. Thanks for your thoughts. I feel IPR is an important part of the economy because, increasingly, people are earning their livelihood through the exercise of innovation and creativity.

    My take is that innovation must have some level of protection in law. But obviously the rules must define the criteria for innovation clearly and not allow abuse of the system.

    Comment by Hari (blog owner) on Sun, Sep 2, 2012 @ 08:34 IST #
  7. Here in the USA, "Fair Use" principles fall short of regulating copyright abuse, which has been pushed far beyond original intent.

    Comment by Justa Notha (visitor) on Mon, Sep 3, 2012 @ 23:31 IST #
  8. I'm pretty sure that most of the people who saw "Open Source" as an alternative to "Free Software" (like me) share RMS's goals, but disagree with his methods. The reason I worked to promote Open Source for 13 years as an OSI board member is simply because I thought that RMS was incapable of achieving his vision, and that we could.

    Now, simply because RMS believes that you're not free unless you know you're free, doesn't mean that he's right. Your freedom is measured in the lack of restrictions on your behavior, not on your loud pronouncements about your freedom. Viz the United States right now, particularly surrounding the 4th of July celebrations.

    Comment by Russ Nelson (visitor) on Tue, Jul 30, 2013 @ 03:48 IST #
  9. Thanks for your views, Russ.

    Comment by Hari (blog owner) on Tue, Jul 30, 2013 @ 11:45 IST #
  10. I think that the FSF philosophy does not hate the proprietary software but it is logical that the changes back to the community as a common own good while you always have the option of adopting or not the GPL. Humanity is more than tools and technique. The main idea is that the digital tools of communication and work like email, are widespread in all work areas and should not be in the hands of private entities such as the spoken language itself. Can you imagine that one company can decide whether you can use your native spoken language or not?

    IMHO, they lost control wanting EVERYTHING was free.

    Comment by Divel (visitor) on Wed, Dec 18, 2013 @ 00:14 IST #
  11. Thanks for your thoughts, Divel.

    Comment by Hari (blog owner) on Wed, Dec 18, 2013 @ 17:59 IST #

Comments closed

The blog owner has closed further commenting on this entry.