Open source vs. free software

On a practical level open source software and free software usually share the same licenses, but according to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the open source movement is philosophically distinct from the free software movement. The FSF's free software definition is more restrictive than the Open Source Definition (OSD). All free software is open source; free software is a subset of open source software. In theory, open-source software may or may not be "free," but in practice, nearly all open-source licenses also satisfy the FSF's free software definition. The difference is more a matter of philosophical emphasis. (One exception is an early version of the Apple Public Source License, which was considered open-source but not free, because it did not allow private modified versions; this restriction was later removed.) (See also Open-source license.)

Related Topics:
Open source - Free software - Free Software Foundation - Open source movement - Free software movement - Open-source license

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Many people recognize a qualitative benefit to the software development process when a program's source code can be used, modified and redistributed by developers. (See also The Cathedral and the Bazaar.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The free software movement emphasizes the moral and ethical aspects of software, seeing technical excellence as a desirable by-product of its ethical standard. The open source movement sees technical excellence as the primary goal, regarding source code sharing as a means to an end. As such, the FSF distances itself both from the open source movement and from the term 'open source.'

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If the Open Source Definition (OSD) is treated as a distribution scheme, as Richard Stallman holds, then the right to copy software is necessarily implied by any OSD license. This view is strengthened by statements made by backers of the OSD that the term "open source software" is simply a "marketing campaign for Free Software". However, the proliferation of use licenses has led many people to believe that a license is required to run software. From that perspective, the OSD (by itself) does not grant nor imply any right to copy software unless the term "redistribute" is interpreted as including the act of copying.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~