Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 19, 2003 06:05 AM
This is how I understand the difference between "open source" and "free software":
First, the actual software for these two groups is the same. The open source code and free software code is the same. The real difference is in the politics and the advocating strategies.
The FSF's advocacy for free software can be summed up as "Free software because software should be free, and if your software isn't free then you're a horrible person, and you should suffer a public flogging!"
The OSI's advocacy for open source can be summed up as "Open source because it's good for business."
In other words, the FSF takes an idealistic approach to advocacy, while the OSI takes a pragmatic approach to it.
To people like us ("computer people", who "get" technology), the idealistic "software should be free" makes a lot of sense to us, but to a businessman/politician who's never seen a line of source code in his life, it doesn't make much sense. So, in comes the OSI to convince those kinds of people that open source is a good thing.
In yet other words, it's the same software, but with different rhetoric attached to it.
Whether or not you agree with the OSI's pragmatic approach to advocacy, you can't deny the changes that are taking place since their creation in 1998. Think about it: before the OSI, the mainstream shrugged off "free software" people as fanatics and kooks, but now everybody is falling over each other to hop on the "open source" bandwagon.
Ok, here's a quote from <A HREF="http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php"> The Faq</a opensource.org>:
Are you guys opposed to intellectual property rights?
The Open Source Initiative does not have a position on whether ideas can be owned, whether patents are good or bad, or any of the related controversies. We think the economic self-interest arguments for open source are strong enough that nobody needs to go on any moral crusades about it.
See? Pragmatism! Stallman hates pragmatism, Stallman wants you to use free software because it's free, not because it's cheaper or better or whatever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:"open source" vs Open Source?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 19, 2003 06:05 AMFirst, the actual software for these two groups is the same. The open source code and free software code is the same. The real difference is in the politics and the advocating strategies.
The FSF's advocacy for free software can be summed up as "Free software because software should be free, and if your software isn't free then you're a horrible person, and you should suffer a public flogging!"
The OSI's advocacy for open source can be summed up as "Open source because it's good for business."
In other words, the FSF takes an idealistic approach to advocacy, while the OSI takes a pragmatic approach to it.
To people like us ("computer people", who "get" technology), the idealistic "software should be free" makes a lot of sense to us, but to a businessman/politician who's never seen a line of source code in his life, it doesn't make much sense. So, in comes the OSI to convince those kinds of people that open source is a good thing.
In yet other words, it's the same software, but with different rhetoric attached to it.
Whether or not you agree with the OSI's pragmatic approach to advocacy, you can't deny the changes that are taking place since their creation in 1998. Think about it: before the OSI, the mainstream shrugged off "free software" people as fanatics and kooks, but now everybody is falling over each other to hop on the "open source" bandwagon.
Ok, here's a quote from <A HREF="http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php"> The Faq</a opensource.org>:
Are you guys opposed to intellectual property rights?
The Open Source Initiative does not have a position on whether ideas can be owned, whether patents are good or bad, or any of the related controversies. We think the economic self-interest arguments for open source are strong enough that nobody needs to go on any moral crusades about it.
See? Pragmatism! Stallman hates pragmatism, Stallman wants you to use free software because it's free, not because it's cheaper or better or whatever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
#