[marcoamorales]

As someone who shares beliefs with FSF's ideals, reading this rant makes me think that maybe there's a chance to bring up another movement with the relative same ideals as Free Software but have a different type of leadership.

[algorias]

Doesn't the open source movement overlap quite heavily with the ideals of free software? I know there are also significant differences, specially the tolerance of proprietary code.

I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, just honestly curious why you think a 3rd alternative would bring change in any meaningful way. We have enough fragmentation as things stand.

[btilly]

Doesn't the open source movement overlap quite heavily with the ideals of free software?

Not really.

Open source can be described as a marketing campaign to convince people who don't care about free software to produce/accept it. The catch is that the people who are most attracted to that marketing campaign are attracted precisely because they do not care about free software ideals. Even worse, when you're motivated by something fundamentally different than the GNU manifesto, your actions will not always fit that manifesto.

An example of the difference is the use of permissive licenses. Someone who is into open source will often like permissive licenses because they let them reuse open source code in proprietary code. A free software supporter, by contrast, will avoid permissive licenses for the same reason.

[Jare]

> Open source can be described as a marketing campaign to convince people who don't care about free software to produce/accept it

On the other hand, Free Software can be described as an attempt by certain fanatics to hijack the idea of open source code sharing, in order to advance their own ideals.

[dlitz]

Yeah, but that's not what actually happened. "Free software" and "open source" are terms whose etymologies are fairly well documented, and many of us remember when and why they were coined. The term, "open source" in particular (as applied to software) was coined in 1998 to market free software to the types of businesspeople who equated "free" with "cheap, crappy, etc".

There's a documentary on YouTube that does a reasonably good job of telling the story of how and why this happened, including the conflicts between the various factions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjaC8Pq9-V0

[btilly]

I think that my characterization is significantly less controversial. For instance Bruce Perens (original author of the open source definition) says that the open source definition was ...conceived as a program to market the free software concept to people who wore ties.

On the other hand your characterization strikes at the heart of the BSD vs GPL argument as it is viewed by BSD proponents.

[Jare]

Exactly, I'm leaning more towards Eric S. Raymond's developer-centric views, which may not be canonically Open Source but do speak a lot more to me and my personal history pre-1998. But this hopefully answers the question by the gp about why there is room for more than two (and three) 'movements': to promote different aspects of software availability.

[disgruntledphd2]

Sure, you could frame it that. However, the historical timeline of both of those terms (in that FS was coined long before OS) would suggest that your interpretation may not be the best one.

That being said, I am certainly aware of the many, many practical difficulties with the GPL, but that doesn't stop it being one of the best (IMO, of course) events in software in the last thirty years.

[rhizome]

Not only that, but nobody ever addresses the perhaps-strawmanned assertion that what the GPL does should be easy. That is, why the practical difficulties of the GPL constitute a negative, i.e. the "bug vs. feature" argument.

[marcoamorales]

They do overlap, but Open Source Initiative doesn't care at all about users' freedoms, which I personally believe to be very important.

[dalke]

Agreed. It took a while for me to understand the idea that the free/open source difference is reasonably described as the difference between user freedoms and developer freedoms.

[chimeracoder]

I like that distinction, but to be clear, the distinction isn't strictly an "either-or". It's pretty clear that "open source" is motivated by developer freedoms, but the fact that "free software" is motivated by user freedoms doesn't make it less about developer freedoms.

In other words, if you subscribe to the four tenets of software freedom as they pertain to users, "free software" also provides as much freedom to the developers as is possible without compromising on the users' freedoms.

[tytso]

Well, the Linux Kernel's position is that we want the contributions from companies like Tivo, because even though a particular device might be locked down. Contributions from companies like Tivo, and Sony, and Samsung, which may have some of their products with locked down devices, are nevertheless valid contributions which will help make the Linux kernel better --- and those contributions can also be used in completely free systems.

So it's basically a "stone soup" model, as it applies to developers. If you use my source code, you can use it for whatever you want, so long as my freedoms to get back your changes (which then I can use in whatever way I want, including in locked down devices) can go into the project.

As far as I am concerned, a locked-down device is a business model choice. It allows hardware to be sold for much less money, because it allows for alternate monetization strategies (i.e., the Tivo subscription services, video rentals, etc.) People who want to buy general purpose computers can always install the Open Source software on a machine of their choosing, and that's also fine. Whether you want to pay $199 or $699 and perhaps give up some freedoms as far as that particular device is concerned is also a choice which each user should be allowed to make on their own. After all, the freedom to choose is also a freedom.

Now, there are two counter-arguments to this perspective. Once is in a device with a mixed set of proprietary and free/open source software, it may not be possible to use the proprietary software on a general purpose computer. There the question is whether free software should be used as a bludgeon to force vendors of products which also use some proprietary code to give more freedoms to users (which may undermine certain business models as described above).

The second pontential argument is "what if there are no more general purpose computers". And there this is where the UEFI secure boot discussions become especially interesting. However, so long as it's possible to disable secure boot, or the hardware allows users to install signing keys of their own choosing, the threat of not being able to purchase general purpose computers where you can install software of your choice is not credible at least in the near term, and so long as we work hard to make sure it doesn't appear, I don't think will be a huge threat in the long term. You may not be able to get a general purpose computer with a quad-core CPU, 16 gigs of memory, etc., for $29.95 plus a two year subscription, but if you are willing to pay the full fair price, I'm fairly confident the threat of not being able to buy a general purpose computer is not a high probability outcome.

So the bottom line is we want developers to be able to be free to pursue business models that in turn allow users to be able to purchase devices that may not offer them the full set of freedomes --- but it's the user's choice that they get those locked-down devices. The FSF position is that they don't want their source code to ever be used in devices that might not allow users the full range of freedoms, even if it hurts the software project by turning away developers who have these business models that they disagree with.

[chimeracoder]

> I'm fairly confident the threat of not being able to buy a general purpose computer is not a high probability outcome.

I already have to go very far out of my way and pay a huge premium for getting an unlocked Android phone. As phones/tables supplant many "general-purpose" computer use cases, this threat is only increasing, if current trends continue.

[yxhuvud]

Sorry but you cannot have both the cake and eat it. You either have to compromise on users or on developers. GPL license writers choose not to compromise on users by enforcing that modifications are contributed back. BSD license writers choose not to compromise on developers by allowing developers to use the code as they see fit, no strings attached.

These are not compatible. There are either strings attached as in GPL or there are not, as in BSD.

[chimeracoder]

> You either have to compromise on users or on developers.

Developers are users.

> There are either strings attached as in GPL or there are not, as in BSD.

From the way you're phrasing this, it's clear you miss the free software paradigm altogether. There are no strings attached. The ability for some users to limit other users' freedoms isn't one of the four freedoms.

[icebraining]

enforcing that modifications are contributed back

Forward, not back. Sorry, but I think this is an important yet often missed distinction.

[dalke]

Developers are a proper subset of users. There's no either-or here.

[chimeracoder]

Well, that's my point. "Open source" protects only the freedoms that relate to a portion of users (developers), whereas "free software" protects the freedoms that relate to all users.

[rbanffy]

> It's pretty clear that "open source" is motivated by developer freedoms, but the fact that "free software" is motivated by user freedoms doesn't make it less about developer freedoms

I'm always surprised by the number of developers who enjoy the freedoms they are granted without thinking twice about taking the same freedoms away from their users.

[__david__]

Agreed, but it's sad because "Open Source" is a better name than "Free Software" since, unless they are familiar with GNU already, most people are going to interpret it as "software that doesn't cost anything" which couldn't be further from the point.

[icebraining]

Well, Open Source is often used to describe code that can be viewed but not modified or redistributed, while the OSI definition includes those as requirements for a license to be considered "Open Source".

[cmccabe]

Nobody uses "open source" that way except for certain companies that are deliberately trying to create confusion. They would do so no matter what terminology was used.

[af3]

why bringing something up? [1]

just fork, code and... maybe make profit. [2]

[1] http://xkcd.com/927/

[2] http://www.techotopia.com/index.php/A_Brief_History_of_Red_H...

[dlisboa]

Because organization is important. There's more to software distribution than coding and the legal basis of it all is unifying for most free software. Some times you cannot "just fork, code" because the underlying legal framework for your software is broken, and you're forced to reinvent the wheel.

[af3]

the license under which code is released is important, the rest are excuses.

[dalke]

Or Ubuntu? ;)

[dillona]

Shuttleworth is the last person I want to leave my fate up to. He is even after RMS.

[dalke]

It's the UNG project - Ubuntu is Not GNU! (Has no one already made that pun?)