Open Source vs Free Software

Author

Lauri Laineste

IMKE, Tallinn University

Keywords

open source, free software, gnu, license, software

Abstract

In this short article Lauri Laineste takes a closer look at the ‘Open Source’ and ‘Free Software’ definitions. The point of this article is to make clear what are the differences between Open Source,- and Free Software schools and why there is a need for two different licenses. Laineste brings out the conditions that a software has to fill in order to gain the Open Source or the Free Software license.

Introduction

During the golden 60’s, when the first commercial computers started to spread, software on the machines was free (libre). It came with source code and was easily shared. The business at these times was the hardware. But during the 70’s computers became less expensive and more accessible - non-technical office workers and home users had a need for computers. The software companies started to see an oppurtunity in making money with software. Companies started to sell only the compiled binaries.

The situation started to change in the mid 80’s, when Richard Stallman saw an danger in propertiary software: users could buy a copy of a program but couldn’t change or distribute it. Without source code the software had no value. One thing lead to another and the organisations fighting for libre software were born.

Research question

What is the main difference between Open Source and Free Software schools?

Methods

Literature analysis is used in creating this article.

Open Source

OSI stands for Open Source Initiative and is a organisation that promotes open source software. According to Wikipedia the organisation was founded in February 1998 by Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond when Netscape Communications Corporation, published the source code for its flagship Netscape Communicator product as free software, due to lowering profit margins and competition with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer software.

Free Software

FSF stans for Free Software Foundation and is a organisation to promote free software movement. According to Wikipedia the organisation was founded on October 4, 1985 by Richard Stallman to support the GNU Project.

FSF vs OSI

Both of the schools have more or less similar aims, but differ in their philosophy and values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. People intend to mix these 2 principles.

The definition of free software (via fsf.com): Free software is a matter of the users’ freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

  • The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  • The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
  • The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.

The definition of open source (via opensource.com): Under the Open Source Definition, licenses must meet 10 conditions in order to be considered open source licenses:

  1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold.
  2. Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable.
  3. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed.
  4. Integrity of The Author’s Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.
  5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out.
  6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.
  7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
  8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.
  9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.
  10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.

Conclusion

It seems like for the Open Source, the question whether a software should be open source, has a practical meaning (the availabilty to modify the code); for the Free Software, it seems to be like a principal, that the users have the right for free software.

References

Free Software vs Open Source [Accessed Dec. 13, 2007]

Open source history [Accessed Dec. 13, 2007]

Roberts J., (2007), Free software vs open source [Accessed Dec. 13, 2007]

Stallman R., (2007), Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software [Accessed Dec. 13, 2007]

Stallman R., (2002), Why open source needs Free Software’s ideals [Accessed Dec. 13, 2007]

Why Free Software is better than Open Source [Accessed Dec. 13, 2007]

No Responses to Open Source vs Free Software

Leave a Reply