What is Open Source?

s390 writes "The Inquirer is running an article by Olliance about "What is Open Source?" It appears to be the first of a two-part series for managers about how to engage with the open source community. The writers seem to know their material. Are they on target or have they missed something important? Do PHBs really need to read this sort of introduction to get comfortable with the idea of using Linux and other open source software?"

Re:GNU's definition

[ronfar]

Actually, I think here [gnu.org] is a more accurate view of the GNU Foundations ideas about Open Source Software.

Re:This is what it is

[antis0c]

Funny, seeing as Free Software and Open Source are two entirely different things. They each have their own foundations. The Free Software Foundation [fsf.org], and the Open Source Initiative [opensource.org].

FSF, GNU, GPL and all that was started by Richard Stallman, RMS from here on. Open Source, OSI and the Open Source Definition was first drafted by Bruce Perens. They are very similar in nature but have a lot of differences in the details. There FSF focuses primarily on GNU GPL and LGPL, The OSI and OSD are more broad, and do include the GPL under its terms, but also a variety of other licenses. The OSD sets up a moral standard, with 10 (originally 9) Sections to define a set of common guidelines a license must have to be considered Open Source.

The philosphies of these two men differ slightly. Where as RMS believes ALL software should be free and no commercial software should exist, Bruce Perens believes both can co-exist and co-mingle for the greater benefit of both. If you've ever seen the movie Revolution OS, they talk a good amount about the differences between FSF and OSI and GPL and OSD. Bruce Perens is even quoted as saying that the major difference is RMS believes all software should be GPL, and anything that isn't hurts the GPL. RMS doesn't seem such a 'great leader' after you get into the details. Granted, he's done a lot of good things, I hear the non-jews had a good life in Nazi Germany too.

So, yes, RTFM indeed.

Re:The thing I see is

[CableModemSniper]

well in this particular article they mention BSD as well, maybe some others I don't recall. But they definitely didn't say everything was GPL.

OSS superset of FS

[dh003i]

OSS is not the same thing as FS. There are connections between the two of them, but they are not the same thing.

At it's most basic level, FS is concerned about the freedom of users. Users should have certain freedoms. See the FSF's Free Software Definition (FSD) [fsf.org]. The FSF has also published an article describing what they think FS (Free Software) is better than OS (Open Source) [gnu.org].

OSS is more about a development model than user and developer freedoms. The freedoms it ensures to the user and developers are geared towards that development model. See the OSI's Open Source Definition (OSD) [opensource.org] (OSD).

Summarily, OSS is a superset of FS, FS a subset of OSS. Anything that is FS is also OSS; however, many things that are OSS are not FS. The FSD has a stricter definition than does the OSD, thus many licenses that the FSD deems too restrictive are acceptable under the OSD. For example, the OSI considers the APSL (Apple Public Software License) to be OSS, but the FSF does not consider the ASPL to be FS.

A relevant quote from the FSF's webpage:

The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, ``Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.

Re:Not obvious

[Milo Fungus]

Agreed. As a greenie geek I spent a lot of time just getting up to speed. To save you some Googling (which is a great way to learn about OS/FS), let me post some links for you. These were articles that I've found particularly helpful.

• GNUWin II Articles Directory [gnuwin.epfl.ch] - A good collection of famous FS/OS articles.
• Philosophy section of the GNU Project [gnu.org] - This is the extreme left wing of free software. I personally prefer a more moderate approach, but the ideas are engaging.
• Interview with Andreas Pour of the KDE Project [ofb.biz] - This interview did much to convert me to open source philosophies.
• Legal Concepts section of CreativeCommons.org [creativecommons.org] - Masterminded by Lawrence Lessig, the legal champion of the public commons. One of the greatest minds working for the cause of FS/OS. He also has a couple of books [stanford.edu] that you might consider reading. I've read the first one and found it quite interesting.

Some of these weren't around when I was getting into things. Creative Commons came a bit later. Most of my earliest reading was from GNU. You've already found Slashdot, which is one of the best resources for learning about FS/OS, especially as it relates to current developments.

One word of caution: FS/OS is a religion. People can be very zealous about their views on it. Be careful as you formulate your own opinions, which will likely change over time. When in doubt, choose a more moderate approach. (If you're interested, my personal views can be found here [joeysmith.com].)

I hope this is helpful. Well, off to more reading myself...

Re:One misconception I had

[GreenBugsBunny]

One misconception I had was that open source meant you had to give the product away for free. This was even reflected in version 1.0 of the Open Source Music License I wrote (that I based on the GPL). But that's not so! You only have to give the source away, not the end-product. And you don't even have to make it available for download, you need only sell people CDs of the source for the cost of the media.

Actually, this isn't exactly accurate either. You only have to provide the source code to those who have access to the binary code. You could modify or create any GPL software to your hearts content. If you didn't distribute the binary, you don't have to distribute the source. If you sell the binary, you only have to make the source available. I believe you can even withold the source until it is requested (don't quote me on that, though). If you make the binary packages available for free, you must make the source available.

Of course, you can just distribute the source. There's nothing requiring a binary distribution.

Also, you can sell your product for whatever amount of money you want. As long as you make the source available. Whoever buys your software has all of the rights they have to any GPL software, though. They could modify your software and distribute it for free if they wanted to.

The GPL is all about removing restrictions on who can or cannot use the software. Sure you can charge for the software, but that doesn't stop anybody who buys it from giving it away.

Re:Quality? Not.

[bullestock]

Below the projects that are marginally successful is the dark underside of open source, the thousands of dead and moribund projects on SourceForge. The SourceForge people like to boast about how many projects they have, but for most of them, they're just providing free hosting for trash.

True, and SF has recognized this - they have recently announced that they will start purging projects with no activity.