Posted by: Benjamin Mako Hill
on January 29, 2006 11:35 AM
This, in a nutshell, is the difference between "free" and "open" software. Because of the nature of "free" software (licensed under terms that will forever guarantee our rights as long as there are legal institutions that are willing to accept the validity of such a license, which, sadly, is not a sure bet) means that the collective "we" will always receive benefit. Software that follows a GPL-style freedom model ACCUMULATES knowledge and value over time and spreads it. Where as many narrowly defined OSS licenses allow/enable knowledge hoarding. Such knowledge can simply vanish when the commercial/private venture that created it goes *poof*, and in the end all such entities do.
I think you are confused about the definitions of free and open. The FSD defines free software but does not say that free software must include GPL-style prohibitions on future enclosure. These prohibitions fall under the umbrella called "copyleft" of which the GPL is the best known example. Copyleft is common in the licenses that the FSF chooses but it not a requirement for software to be called free software or embraced by the FSF.
In fact, every "open source" license (with the possible exception of one or two) is also considered a free software license by the FSF and they are considered just as free. The Open Source initative embraces GPL software as well. There is really zero difference in the licenses that are included under the OSD and the FSD.
The idea that "free" is GPL/Copyleft and "open source" is BSD is a common misconception but it is incorrect nonetheless. I have heard Lawrence Lessig, who is on the board of the Free Software Foundation, make the mistake even! I hope this clear things up and that I didn't mistunderstand you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:remember these facts next time
Posted by: Benjamin Mako Hill on January 29, 2006 11:35 AMThis, in a nutshell, is the difference between "free" and "open" software. Because of the nature of "free" software (licensed under terms that will forever guarantee our rights as long as there are legal institutions that are willing to accept the validity of such a license, which, sadly, is not a sure bet) means that the collective "we" will always receive benefit. Software that follows a GPL-style freedom model ACCUMULATES knowledge and value over time and spreads it. Where as many narrowly defined OSS licenses allow/enable knowledge hoarding. Such knowledge can simply vanish when the commercial/private venture that created it goes *poof*, and in the end all such entities do.
I think you are confused about the definitions of free and open. The FSD defines free software but does not say that free software must include GPL-style prohibitions on future enclosure. These prohibitions fall under the umbrella called "copyleft" of which the GPL is the best known example. Copyleft is common in the licenses that the FSF chooses but it not a requirement for software to be called free software or embraced by the FSF.
In fact, every "open source" license (with the possible exception of one or two) is also considered a free software license by the FSF and they are considered just as free. The Open Source initative embraces GPL software as well. There is really zero difference in the licenses that are included under the OSD and the FSD.
The idea that "free" is GPL/Copyleft and "open source" is BSD is a common misconception but it is incorrect nonetheless. I have heard Lawrence Lessig, who is on the board of the Free Software Foundation, make the mistake even! I hope this clear things up and that I didn't mistunderstand you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
#