 
 
 
|
Differences Between Open Source and Free
Software
The Open Source Initiative
As mentioned earlier, the
term "open source" was conceived in order to pique corporate interests
in free software. A non-profit organization called the Open
Source Initiative was formed shortly thereafter, and its mandate is
to promote open source as a mainstream computing solution. The OSI describes
open source as "peer reviewed software."[10]
This description references both the fact that anyone who is interested
can modify an open source program, and the belief that free software is
a better product because of the many minds that collaborate to work on
a program. It evokes free software's origins in academia, possibly in an
attempt to render the concept more credible with corporate culture, and
rescue open source from the anti-corporate image with which it has been
associated in the past.
One of the arguments in favour
of open source suggests that open source programs mature faster than their
proprietary counterparts. Rather than paying an army of cubicle-dwelling
computer scientists to de-bug the software, open source opens the program
up to the world. The people who de-bug open source are the people who use
it on a daily basis – and this means that they have a personal investment
in the program and its improvement.[11]
Their commitment to software development is necessarily different than
the commitment of those on the software companies' payrolls. In theory,
one of the advantages of having users de-bug software is that, due to regular
use of the software in the "real world," they will discover practical problems
with the program – and, hopefully, create practical solutions.
It's Still About Freedom
Richard Stallman and the
Free Software Foundation, on the other hand, do not see eye to eye with
the Open Source Initiative’s pursuit of corporate acceptance. The very
notion of free software interrogates that which is not free – it questions
why companies who sell proprietary software feel the need to restrict what
the end user does with the software. If users blindly accept and endorse
these restrictions by purchasing proprietary software, then they further
entrench elitist notions of software development. Ultimately, the feeling
is that proprietary software is the antithesis of innovation, and it is
simply bad practice to release programs for which the code is static, and
not respond to user needs except through the cranking wheels and gears
of corporate software development (read “bureaucracy”).
Stallman feels that too much
is lost when free software is no longer called free software – when you
take the "free"(dom) away. He looks to the future of free software, to
the growing legions of users and software developers who have been born
into the proprietary software era, and know no alternative. In this context,
above and beyond being an ideal development process, free software is also
an educational tool:
… talking about freedom,
about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, is
asking people to think about things they might rather ignore. This can
trigger discomfort, and some people may reject the idea for that. It does
not follow that society would be better off if we stop talking about these
things. … We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users,
failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as they
enter it. … To stop using the word "free" now would be a mistake; we need
more, not less, talk about freedom.[12]
The
schematic diagram below was generated by the Free Software Foundation in
order to illustrate the relationships between different types of software.
As is apparent, this is a very complex issue. For all that there are philosophical
differences between the open source and free software camps, it is useful
to remember that, when compared to the entire picture of software development,
the two are for the most part on the same team.
|
