by Aaron M. Renn
arenn@urbanophile.com
I have read a lot recently about the effort some net activists are making to replace the term "free software" with "open-source software". (I will use "non-proprietary software" in an effort to be somewhat non-partisan). Supporters of this include such people as Eric Raymond (who wrote a manifesto on the subject.), Linus Torvalds, and Bruce Perens. This move has been opposed by some people, most notably Richard Stallman of the GNU Project (who has posted a rebuttal).
The supporters of "open source" give two main reasons for their proposed change:
These two reasons have largely framed the terms of the debate. Most postings I have seen on the Net debate the point in terms of which term is clearer or which one will appeal most to business. There has been a lot of discussion, but no real resolution to this dispute.
But I believe the real reason there is a division is not because of a difference of opinion over which term best communicates what non-proprietary software is. I believe there are fundamental philosophical differences about the nature of software ownership between many people on both sides of the debate, and that those differences play a part (perhaps unconsciously) in how people feel about a switch.
My belief is that the "open source" advocates do not believe software should intrinsically be free. They do want to see non-proprietary software thrive, but it is because they believe it is technically superior and because they prefer it as a matter of personal taste. So they define the terms of discourse in a manner compatible with that philosophy, and in a manner they hope will bring about their vision of world domination by non-proprietary software.
I think the "free software" advocates do believe in the intrinsic freedom of software and, having successfully promoted a term consistent with their philosophy, do not want to see it changed. They are more likely to care more about the purity or ethics of non-proprietary software as opposed to its market acceptance.
Many people fall in the middle, of course, including myself. But after thinking a lot about this, I have come to the conclusion that "free software" should remain the preferred term. I also believe that, at a bare minimum, everyone should look at this terminology debate not strictly as a disagreement about definitions, but as an important philosophical decision point.
I will try to explain each of these points in detail, hopefully without getting too boring or offending everyone on the planet.
Some of analysis is based on my concqlusions about the beliefs of the principals of the different camps. Obviously there are a lot of people out there and judging a movement by its leaders provides only a limited insight. In particular, I should point out that most people's personal views probably fall somewhere in the middle. This posting should be read with that limitation in mind.
I do not personally know any of the principals, and therefore I have had to rely on reading their published works. This limits me to talking about people who have published a great deal on the net. Those people are Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond, and Linus Torvalds. Obviously my interpretation of their writings or quotes is just that - my opinion. It should not be viewed as authoritative, particularly in light of the fact that all these people are alive to explain themselves.
It may seem controversial to suggest that the "open source" camp does not believe in the freedom of software. Indeed, people like Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond have produced some of the finest and most widely used software available today - much of it distributed under the exact same terms as Richard Stallman's. No one (certainly not me) questions their personal contributions to non-proprietary software and computing in general.
However, neither Eric nor Linus believe software needs to be free. In fact, both of them are very comfortable with the idea of proprietary software. Linus is upfront about stating he does not mind proprietary software. He was quoted in an interview [link removed due to link rot] as saying:
Then there is software that is commercial but doesn't come with sources (the "traditional" commercial software as opposed to a Red Hat Linux distribution). And I don't try to preach against that either: I hate the fact that I (and others) can't fix bugs in them, but sometimes that kind of software is the way to go.
So he personally prefers free software (and says so in the interview), but does not think that software particularly needs to be free or that there is anything wrong with proprietary software (except perhaps not being able to fix bugs).
Eric Raymond is even stronger in his support of proprietary software. Here is a quote from a paper [link removed due to link rot] he wrote:
I believe in strong intellectual-property rights. I believe any programmer has the same fundamental right as any other producer to `hoard' and sell the fruits of his/her labor on whatever terms the market will bear. While I choose to publish nearly all of my software as open-source, I will never, ever condemn others for choosing differently.
So there are at least two principal advocates of the term "open source" that personally do not believe in the intrinsic freedom of software, and in fact have no problems with proprietary software. For them, the choice of non-proprietary versus proprietary is one primarily of personal preference and/or choosing the right tool for the job.
On the other side of the fence, Richard Stallman's views on software are perhaps the best known on the net. He wrote a paper called "Why Software Should Not Have Owners". The title alone pretty much sums up his views. Richard Stallman believes that it is morally wrong to produce software that is not free. He personally refuses to even use software that is not free (except for the purpose of creating a free replacement).
So in this debate, we have leadership with diametrically opposed views on the nature of ownership in software. Because of this, I do not find it surprising that these people have a major difference over terminology.
The absolutism of Richard Stallman's free software stance has often been troublesome to people who feel that what they produce is theirs to do with as they please. I suspect this is particularly true of Americans, who tend to be believers in strong private property rights. For a long time however, not too many people challenged this philosophy. My personal speculation is that this is because during much of the 1980's and early 1990's, the FSF was the dominant producer of major non-proprietary software packages. People were willing to play along with the hard line philosophy in return for the great dividends in software that it paid (Emacs, gcc, gdb, etc).
In the mid-1990's though, the FSF ceased to be the driving force in non-proprietary software. Most of their replacements for Unix utilities were complete and had reached a point of reasonable maturity. The major uncompleted component of the GNU system - the kernel - was under development, but the design was ambitious (perhaps overly ambitious) and the pace of development slow. Meanwhile, the non-proprietary Linux kernel, released under the GPL and combined with the rest of the GNU programs, exploded in popularity as the OS of choice among those who preferred non-proprietary software. Other programs like perl, under a different but similar license to the GPL, also rose in popularity. So with most of the developments in the non-proprietary software world coming from non-FSF sources, the incentive to ignore basic philosophical differences with the FSF began to disappear.
So we come to the "open source" versus "free software" debate. First let me state clearly that I do not believe the backers of the term "open source", including Eric Raymond and Linus Torvalds, are engaged in a sinister plot against the FSF, non-proprietary software, or anything else for that matter. I am not alleging a conspiracy. But I do believe that switching to the term "open source" and focusing on penetrating corporations represents more than just a change in terms. It is a fundamental shift in thinking about what non-proprietary software is all about. A shift away from thinking that non-proprietary software should be developed because it is the right thing to do, towards thinking non-proprietary software should be developed because it provides greater user benefits than proprietary software. Or, as Eric Raymond said, getting rid of the "losing attitude" associated with term "free software" and concentrating on how to increase the number of people using non-proprietary software.
This effort has a great many guns in its arsenal, because there are a great many tangible benefits to non-proprietary software. For example:
But it is a mistake to focus on the user benefits generated as the primary reason for creating or using free software. And that is exactly what the "open source" advocates are doing. They want businesses to adopt non-proprietary software because it delivers greater benefits to the company than proprietary software. At its core, their proposed changes turn the non-proprietary software movement into a marketing movement. Now there is certainly nothing wrong with marketing software, but I am afraid that if we start trying too hard to market ourselves to corporate America or mainstream computer users we might lose sight of the original ideas and ideals of non-proprietary software in the process.
Consider my job. I work in the information systems field as a technical architecture manager. Working at my job brings me lots of benefits, like money, stock options, and the ability to afford a nice apartment, nice meals, vacations, etc. But I cannot let those benefits come to be my motivation for choosing a job. After all, if I spend 40+ hours a week doing something I hate, all the money in the world is not going to make me happy. I will end up a miserable person.
The benefits of using non-proprietary software are just side effects of making a decision that ethically correct. They are not the reasons a person or company should choose non- proprietary software. Selecting non-proprietary software because it delivers the most value is like picking a job based strictly on how much it pays. (Unfortunately, a lot of people do this and become unhappy slaves to making money, working all day at a job they hate). Ideally, a person finds a job that is both personally satisfying and high paying. Just like we have the luxury today of choosing software that is both ethically superior and of the highest quality. But the reason why the decision is made remains just as important
What would we think of someone who supported the replacement of dictatorial tyranny with democratic freedoms, not because he thought freedom was the inalienable right of all men, but because he thought it would produce economic benefits and boost his company's exports to that country?
What would we think of someone who supported civil rights laws, not because he thought all men were created equal, but because he thought equal opportunities for blacks would increase the tax base and reduce the amount of taxes he had to pay?
What would we think of someone who supported banning chemical and biological weapons, not because he thought they were morally wrong, but because he simply thought it would entrench the military superiority of his own country (which possesses nuclear weapons)?
What would we think of a company that donated money to an art museum, not as an act of generosity, but purely to get their corporate logo in front of millions of visitors a year?
Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is not something I think most of us are comfortable with. Now believing that software should intrinsically be free is not an ethical position on par with human or civil rights. (And let me add that I do NOT believe any of the people on either side of the debate are racists or any other -ist). This is an area where many of us disagree.
But it is important to understand that switching to a term like "open source" in order to appeal to the mainstream is more than an attempt to clarify a definition - it is a change in the entire way of thinking about non-proprietary software. No longer will software freedoms or the ethics of software ownership be the primary focus, but rather fostering the adoption of non-proprietary software. These are two completely distinct things.
People like Eric Raymond and Linus Torvalds probably do not view things this way because they never had an ethical or moral problem with software ownership. For them it is non-proprietary vs. proprietary and may the best code win. People like Richard Stallman, who views proprietary software as morally incorrect, see this as a threat to idea of software freedom.
So I encourage people to view the "open source" versus "free software" debate as more than just an inconsequential dispute over terms. For anyone who believes that there is an ethical superiority to free software, not just technical superiority, this change should be considered very carefully.
I realize there is a great diversity of opinion on the matter of software ownership and the ethics of proprietary versus non-proprietary software. I doubt that most people are in agreement with Richard Stallman's absolute assertion that all software should be treated as a public good. But I also think that most people are not entirely comfortable with the extreme laissez-faire beliefs held by Eric Raymond and Linus Torvalds. I think most people believe there is something ethical, important, and noble about free software and that it is worth preserving.
I urge such people to think about what it means to adopt a term like "open source" in order to further the goal of spreading free software. You may conclude that it the shift away from free software for ethical reasons towards free software for economic reasons is a good one. You might think that we can have the best of both worlds with a term like "open source". Or you might believe that the "free software" term should continue to be used in order not to sell out first principles for mammon. Whatever the case, I think everyone should think deeper about the matter when reaching a personal decision and not simply advocate one term over another on the basis of which best conveys what is meant by non-proprietary software.
In short, this is a debate as much about philosophy and ethics as it is about terminology and I hope that everyone perceives it that way.
But what do I think on the matter? After a great deal of thought, I have concluded that we should stick with the term "free software". For two reasons: because I do not believe that adopting the term "open source" will work to truly bring non-proprietary software to dominance in the marketplace, and more importantly, because I believe freedom in software is so important.
I think that softening terms in order to make non-proprietary software more acceptable to the mainstream is an idea with serious flaws. Look at all the great struggles in history. How many people overthrew an entrenched superior force akin to the proprietary software industry by watering down their position? I cannot think of any. On the other hand, I can think of many small bands of people who, armed with a position they claimed to be morally just, triumphed in the face of almost impossible odds.
Look at Martin Luther King and the civil rights struggles of the 60's. Dr. King did not try to convince whites it was in their own best economic interest to treat blacks as equal. Instead he demanded equality as the only alternative for a society that considered itself fair and just. His bold speeches on this remain an inspiration to this day.
Jesus did not tone down any of His rhetoric in order to please the Pharisees. He did not try to make the rich and powerful happy in order to sell His gospel. Instead, with a ragtag band of twelve disciples and whoever would believe Him, He went on to launch perhaps the most influential religion in history. Admittedly, Jesus got nailed to a tree for His efforts, but in the end His ideas triumphed.
The founding fathers of the United States did not launch a revolution against the world's greatest power on a platform of making things better for business. Instead they said things like "Taxation without representation is tyranny", "We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created equal", "Give me liberty, or give me death", and "These are the times that try men's souls." Only by making the American Revolution a war about ideals did it succeed. A revolt based on purely the projected value of benefits received from independence would never have even been attempted.
So purely in terms of promoting the use of non-proprietary software, I do not think getting rid of troublesome terms like "free software" is the right idea. In the short term it might get a few MIS people to take a look, but on such things true revolutions are not launched. Trying to sell the idea of non-proprietary software with non-offensive terms and technical superiority will not work. Silicon Valley is littered with the corpses of companies that sold technically superior products with slick marketing messages but were destroyed by the likes of Microsoft. Instead, I believe to maximize our chances of success in the marketplace, we should increase the level of emphasis placed on freedom and philosophical concepts of non-proprietary software.
The way for non-proprietary software to triumph in the mass market is to seize the moral high ground. Yes, aggressively market non-proprietary software. We do need to shout it from the mountaintop, so to speak. We do need to talk about how much better non-proprietary software is than MS (but not in a heavy handed, arrogant way). We do need to court corporations. But not at the cost of betraying the notion of non-proprietary software as an ethically superior form of software. The term "free software" is a big part of that.
But I also support the term "free software" because I personally have a strong belief that the idea of freedom in software is a ethically superior one - even though I also believe in the copyright system of the US. How can I believe in both proprietary and non- proprietary software? It is simple really. I believe that people should have the right to make their software proprietary even though it is not the best choice. It is often said that "you can't legislate morality" and I believe this. But unlike Eric Raymond, I do not believe that because I support the right of someone to create proprietary software, that means I should act as if it as equally valid a choice as non-proprietary software. I support freedom of speech, but that does not mean I will not speak out and denounce people who say despicable things. I may believe in the KKK's right to spew venomous racist remarks, but I will certainly not stand silent while they do so. Again, proprietary software is nowhere on par with racism. (I even work to create proprietary software for my company). But I do believe the non-proprietary software is an ethically better form of software and should be encouraged, and that software freedom is important and needs to be preserved.
So I think it is important that we stand firmly behind software freedom because it is the right thing to do, even if we do not all believe in abolishing copyrights. And keeping the term "free software" is a way to make sure that we do not forget about that freedom. It may seem like an innocuous change to switch to a term like "open source" and indeed such a switch might be done with the purest of motives. But I am afraid that it could easily be the first step on the proverbial "slippery slope" or the on road to hell paved with good intentions. If those of us who view freedom in software as an ethical imperative compromise on this point, future compromises will just come all that much easier.
People like Eric and Linus do not appear to have this ethical problem, and so a switch is not bothersome to them. That is certainly their right and being the Net peon that I am, I have no grounds (or desire) to keep them from pursuing their goals the best way they know how. I respect their accomplishments and nothing I have seen or read makes me think they are anything other than people worthy of respect on a personal level. But I - and I think many others on the Net - do believe strongly that non-proprietary is software more ethical than proprietary software. For us, this switch needs to be evaluated not in terms of how it will make non-proprietary software more popular, but by how it will further the cause of software freedom. For me, the potential risks of changing terms outweighs any potential benefits, which I believe are small.
When waging war against freedom, seldom do the opponents mount a frontal assault. Instead they attack fringe areas that most people might consider unimportant. For example, in the United States, the freedom to keep and bear arms is protected under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Many people do not believe in this freedom and want to see guns banned. But few of these people come right out and call for a ban on all guns. Instead, they start with something like assault weapons. "Who could be against banning machine guns?" they say. The defenders of gun rights in the US must be sorely tempted to give in on this point, since few of them have any desire to own such a gun. But most of them do not, because they realize that this will not bring them peace, that the anti-gun lobbies will, having had their first victory, move on to the next battle. Perhaps small caliber hand guns this time, or high-powered rifles.
Now if you do not care about gun rights, then whether or not assault weapons get banned is of little concern to you. But if you do, then an assault weapon ban is of vital importance whether or not you personally want to own one. Similarly, if the concept of non-proprietary software being ethically superior software is not important to you, then the terms used do not matter. But if you do, or even if you just care about software freedom as a matter of personal preference, then the choice of terms should be very important, because it could represent a key compromise in the battle against proprietary software. Who knows, maybe the next thing to eliminate in order to satisfy the proprietary/corporate world will be the requirement that the end user of an "open source" product be able to redistribute modified versions without the permission of the author in order to claim "open source" labeling. I hope we never get the chance to find out.
Those of us who believe in non-proprietary software are not in the position of strength necessary to be making compromises, even if it is just in terminology. The proprietary software industry is a multi-billion dollar powerhouse that has friends in high places. The US government may be investigating Microsoft, but the reality is that the software industry in general (including the dreaded MS) is seen by many in Washington as a key strategic point of American advantage in the competitive global economic marketplace. Our politicians are in no mood to do anything to jeopardize that. They will certainly support the software industry in any attempt to maintain the current model.
Also, there are still numerous legal hurdles for those of us writing non-proprietary software. For example, while the wave of look and feel copyright lawsuits has largely been repelled, patents continue to threaten the ability of people like us to write non- proprietary code even if we want to. Just today it was reported that a company is about to granted a patent for, I am not making this up, the "invention" of accepting credit cards over the Internet.
For the moment, the non-proprietary software movement is so small that major software companies have not considered us a threat. So they have not had an incentive to crack down on individuals writing code that, for example, violates patents or was partially produced on company time or company equipment. Someone on the Net recently said in response to my concerns about a lawsuit over company owned code in the Linux kernel, that "that would probably be political suicide." Maybe now, when non-proprietary is no threat to the software industry. But how much sympathy will the public or politicians have when we say that we are out to take over the world and are in danger of putting some companies out of business?
Let us assume the term "open source" comes into wide use and because of it non- proprietary software stands a real chance of taking over the world. The proprietary software industry could attack us with their thousands and thousands of patents and force us to stop using our code. With no patents of our own to cross license, we would be in no position to refuse. And having competed on the terms of the business world, then we would have no grounds for not abiding by its rules. But if we competed and won on the basis of our software being the ethically and morally correct alternative, then we could claim this was unjust. We would have a legitimate claim before the political powers that be for protection against these oppressive patent laws. This very type of claim has led to many great advances for freedom in the US such as the Civil Rights Act and the right to vote for 18 year olds and women.
There are many other scenarios that can be imagined. Again, the best defense against proprietary software and the best way to ensure and expand the freedom to program is to claim the moral high ground for ourselves.
That is why I am sticking with the term "free software", for whatever my puny vote might be worth. I hope all of you will too. Because it both represents the idea of freedom in software as an ethical imperative, and because it gives non-proprietary software the best chance to really take over the world.
Just Say No to Frames, Ads, and Animated GIF's