Back in the 1980s, when Richard Stallman was the only one talking about the need for "free software," no one quite knew what he was talking about. That's not just because people looked askance at someone who said it would be possible to write a version of Unix that could be given away for free, along with all of the compilers, editors, and utilities that a typical Unix installation included.
Stallman also managed to confuse people with the term "free" -- he used it as a political statement, saying "free as in freedom," or "free as in 'free speech'," contrasting it with "free as in 'free beer'." But no matter how hard he tried, Stallman was faced with the reality that most people thought of "free software" as programs for which you didn't have to pay money. The fact that Stallman's software was indeed designed to be given away without charge only added to the confusion.
The term "open source" was supposed to remove that confusion, and was deliberately chosen to emphasize what the software is, rather than what it isn't. The good news is that when the term "open source" was coined, just 10 years ago, the world was ready to listen, and incorporated this term into its vocabulary. The bad news is that the open source world is now so diverse, with so many licenses and commercial interests involved, that it is often hard to know whether a program is truly available on an open source basis without reading the fine print. Even when a reporter does a good job of describing the software and license, you should double-check the details, to ensure that you won't get your organization into trouble.
For example, I read a story earlier this week about a company named Aras that radically shifted its strategy in the last year, switching from a traditional proprietary model to one involving "open source." The article called attention to the fact that Aras is only making its software available for Microsoft Windows -- an acceptable open source strategy, if an unusual one. But then the article indicated that Aras was releasing its software under a "shared source" license that was written by Microsoft.
Now, to anyone in the world of open source software, the term "shared source" is a red flag. The "shared source" program was and is Microsoft's way of fighting the open source world, allowing customers to inspect Microsoft source code without giving those customers the right to modify or redistribute the code. In other words, "shared source" is not open source, and shouldn't be confused with it. So if Aras is distributing its software under a shared-source license, then we can't consider it to be open source, can we?
Actually, we can: It turns out that "shared source" is now the umbrella term that Microsoft uses for its policy of relatively openness and transparency, and that this program includes several different software licenses. Two of these licenses, the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) and the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL), have indeed been approved by the Open Source Initiative, which means that they are indeed open-source licenses. And in fact, Aras is distributing their software under the Ms-PL, which means that their software does indeed qualify for the "open source" moniker.
The confusion stems from the fact that Microsoft's "shared source" program includes three proprietary licenses as well, whose names are similar in some ways to the open-source licenses. Thus, while the Microsoft Reciprocal License has been approved by OSI, the Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) is not, because it allows users to modify and redistribute the software only on the Windows platform.
I encountered a similar issue earlier this week, when I read an article about Sun's open-source virtualization engine being available for the Macintosh. The article went on to state that this product, xVM VirtualBox, could be used for free by individuals, but required a paid license for corporations.
It turns out that there are two versions of xVM VirtualBox; the open source version is freely available to anyone who wants it, and for any reason, but lacks certain options in the proprietary version. It was only after a few minutes of reading and thinking that I finally understood that Sun is offering VirtualBox with a dual license -- with an open source program downloadable for free, and licensed under the GPL, or with a proprietary license for which people have to pay.
In both of the examples I mentioned here, there was no attempt to shade or hide the truth. And in both cases, we were truly dealing with open source software. However, commercial companies are realizing that the term "open source" can be co-opted to some degree, and are starting to confuse us with software that is mostly, but not completely open source. Or they do so with licenses that are similar to, but not completely identical to, the open-source licenses that they publicly tout. Or they do so with software that is described as fully open source, when in fact there are proprietary add-ons required to make it useful.
The bottom line is that in open source, as with everything else, let the buyer (or downloader) beware: Richard Stallman might have been the first one to realize that seemingly clear terms can easily be confused by the general public. In the case of open source, the problem is less one of semantics and multiple meanings, and more one of companies blurring the line between their profitable proprietary software, and their attempts to move into the open source market.
Comments
Add CommentBy an anonymous user on May. 09, 2008
isn't that by design, though? No one size fits all. What is really required, though, is a simple Idiot's guide to the various licenses out there, and what they require and imply. Some licenses like LGPL, BSD and the Apache license are very 'friendly' to the developer and the business user because if the lack of restrictions, but not very 'open source mission' friendly, as opposed to, say, the GPL, which 'forces' sharing of changes and thus protects the 'mission' and the original author, but may not make it easy for business users and developers looking to capture value by restricting access to code....
By Peter on May. 10, 2008
Stallman realized that the stupid public was just stupid and therefore would confuse his genius work?
Please.
The level of ignorance and arrogance required of someone to refer to 'free software' in the political sense is one of the most shameful software legacies of the past two decades.
Stallman is most responsible for the current mess.
By RTD on May. 11, 2008
The should be a idiot's guide to Open Source Licenses - seem's like everyone has their own version. Not only do developers need to know how to program they need to figure out what damn licenses to use.
I agree that the use of the word free wasn't the best choice, but I'm sure we cannot lay all the blame on Mr. Stallman. In general there is a large portion of the population that are well (I don't want to say stupid) but less than average intelligence.
By max stirner on May. 11, 2008
open source was actually coined to get rid of all the "commie" freedom terminology, which has no place in a multi-billion-USD thieving operation.
the days of taxing the world are over now, however, thanks to the philosophy of stallman et al. and the hard work of thousands of engineers.
software expenses will from hereon largely entail development costs for customisation and services for maintenance and security.
By an anonymous user on May. 11, 2008
The "idiots guide" can be found at OSI http://www.opensource.org/licenses ; This is alluded to (poorly) in this "article" (its really an essay).
By Jose_X on May. 11, 2008
>> Some licenses like LGPL, BSD and the Apache license are very 'friendly' to the developer and the business user because if the lack of restrictions, but not very 'open source mission' friendly, as opposed to, say, the GPL, which 'forces' sharing of changes and thus protects the 'mission' and the original author, but may not make it easy for business users and developers looking to capture value by restricting access to code....
How funny. I code and you take it, close it up, and profit. What a deal for me. Wow! So friendly! I can't wait to get started coding!
GPL is the BEST license for developers, users, and service companies, and it's also great for companies that dual license.
The GPL is among the only licenses where the community of developers has a check on copyright holders, for cases where one company owns most or all of the copyrights, through the threat of a fork.
>> In general there is a large portion of the population that are well (I don't want to say stupid) but less than average intelligence.
Free means "no charge" to most people that speak the English language. It also doesn't help that some try to confuse the issue or propagate their own confusion/misunderstanding (eg, "freeware" as opposed to freedomware).
Stallman had a catchy situation since free means these 2 things. "Free as in freedom not as in beer." No charge has a greater appeal than freedom most of the time (at least for Americans who can get away with taking freedom for granted more frequently than some others). But eventually, the no charge situation caught up with us.
By Jose_X on May. 11, 2008
>> Thus, while the Microsoft Reciprocal License has been approved by OSI, the Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) is not, because it allows users to modify and redistribute the software only on the Windows platform.
People who value open source will work to make their code run as well as possible on open standard open platforms and forget about Monopolyware.
See http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-05-09-016-26-OP-BZ-0... and the immediately prior posting in that same thread. >> Open projects shipped over closed platforms are closed since many of the key and most basic functions are closed, and there is much that can never be debugged or extended (at least not by the end users or by anyone ourside the closed platform vendor's castle). Why help make Monopoly Platforms attractive? Why help the Monopolist keep our end users' locked in? >> Porting and bending over to please Monopolyware/soft is time taken away from the ultimate value that can be offered to our end users
Microsoft knows that to maintain their value to end users (despite being closed, open to virus, and costly) is to make sure that Windows can run all applications and that as many applications as possible only run on Windows.
And don't forget Monopolysoft's deceptive way of life. They have a track record for bait and switch. They have more forks on their tongues than a snake pit.
As an open source dev, I ignore Windows while concentrating on adding value to Linux. LiveCDs are easy and cheap and getting more so. That is where the value and the greater future attraction lies to the end user and to the business developer.
By Jose_X on May. 11, 2008
Two more things...
First, coding Microsoft protocols is a rat race. There is only one implementation that matters (Monopolyware) and that implementation is closed source and buggy (and not all bugs are -- cough cough -- accidental). It's intentional for example that ISO UhOhXML is so buggy. This means that while those trying to implement it are busy implementing an inferior solution, Microsoft is on to the next series of closed protocols (that the EU will force them to open up in 5 to 10 years' time), plus can afford to implement their own more correct version of UhOhXML so that their products will both look better than the competition and will not interoperate with the competition who are busy implementing a flawed spec (www.robweir.com/blog is an EXCELLENT source of information on how flawed UhOhXML and the ISO process was).
Two, remember that it is in Monopolysoft's best business interest to preserve their monopolies and, where such monopolies can be leveraged (skirting the law for the time being), to make sure the interfaces they provide to third parties are broken or break (perhaps even after a software update that happens transparently at night while you sleep, changing key software you lease from them and files you own.. as I am sure their EULA stipulates can happen). A failure to interoperate faithfully benefits the Monopolist and helps preserve the monopolies. This is what MSFT stockholders want and this is why they allow Ballmer, Gates, and others to run the company despite their horrendously persistent legal and ethical lapses. Remember it is their interfaces you rely on when you port to their platform or try to interoperate with their products on their systems. They implement everything you use. They WILL NOT give you a fair shot to beat out their own internal application developers that are working to grow their interlocking monopolies and hooks. That is what MSFT stockholders demand. .. and you almost have to be a fool to run that rat race (unless you are mentally or emotionally or economically, etc, hooked).
Don't put your brains on drugs if you can avoid it. There are many jobs where you don't have to get hooked and develop to Monopolyware protocols, where you don't have to help support those billionaires' lifestyles and likely hyena-sounding laughs occurring behind your back.
By renoX on May. 11, 2008
[[Back in the 1980s, when Richard Stallman was the only one talking about the need for "free software"]]
*Sigh* and what about BSD OS which started in 1977 (from Wikipedia) and the early SW which were also 'free software'?
Granted, RMS is very important in the history of free software, but the 'only one'!! This oversimplification could be seen as a 'lie'..
There's different 'brand' of 'free software' and RMS contributed greatly to create and develop a specific brand, but do not reduce 'free software ' to this specific 'brand'..
By Phil on May. 11, 2008
I will agree with most people that "free as in freedom" is very important however many people do not mention the potency of the GPL which promotes the combination of the two "free". I strongly believe that the combination of the parts is larger that the whole therefore I do not waste my time talking about one without the other...or the GPL as a whole.
By GoremanX on May. 11, 2008
VirtualBox has always been available as both a completely "free" version and a binary-only version which incorporates a couple of extra features. This was true long before Sun bought the product and its development. The reason for this is not to forcibly add "proprietary value", it's because the extra features incorporate licensed technologies with rights that needed to be acquired. For example, USB 1.1 pass-through is enabled in the free version, but USB 2.0 pass-through is only in the binary version because of the way Microsoft incorporated the USB 2.0 driver for Windows, which affects both client and host versions of VirtualBox. So claiming that this is "co-opting" the term "open source" is a little over-the-top.
By an anonymous user on May. 11, 2008
Just call it Four Freedoms Software.
Everyone not making Four Freedoms Software is making something else, and it becomes very clear very quickly what that something else is.
4F Software or Not 4F
By rob enderle on May. 11, 2008
>Don't put your brains on drugs if you can >avoid it.
Obviously youre not old enough to remember the deadheads who were responsible for the computer revolution of the 70's... lots of drugs man.... lots of drugs.
Of course, Steve Jobs would rather you not know..
By an anonymous user on May. 11, 2008
@Jose_X: LGPL being 'developer' friendly is meant to be in terms of the developer actually USING the code, not the one just developing it. The developer can choose whichever license he/she wants to use, right? So, if you are not excited about coding under the LGPL license - don't. If people feel your code is worth using AND open sourcing THEIR code on top of it, they will. Let the users (in this case, the developers) decide.
Apache and a ton of other great projects are released under similar licenses. Guess what - not because of ignorance of having other options, but because they felt they'd leave it up to the others to give back in whatever way they choose - via code contributions, monetary contributions or delivering value by using/enhancing their projects.
So, when you claim 'BEST' license, it is BEST for a given set of circumstances. It is zealots (read - ignorant about other perspectives) who fail to see that one size does NOT fit all.
By an anonymous user on May. 12, 2008
``GPL is the BEST license for developers, users, and service companies, and it's also great for companies that dual license.
The GPL is among the only licenses where the community of developers has a check on copyright holders, for cases where one company owns most or all of the copyrights, through the threat of a fork.''
Actually, any open source license has this property. You can't retroactively remove an Apache or BSD license if I have the source code and hence I can create a fork of your project if you choose to close it up.
And, yes, of course the copyright holder on GPLed srcs can change the license.
Also, the GPL does not provide anyone except the copyright holder the right to revoke the license to take any legal action against people who infringe on the license. And in the case that you do decide to take such legal action, you will need to demonstrate something known as damages. So, if I decide to include some of your source code in my product, you will then need to actually demonstrate that you have suffered a cost which can be described monetarily. Given that you have chosen to give the code for free, that might prove to be difficult...
By Jose_X on May. 11, 2008
[an anonymous user on May. 11, 2008] >> So, when you claim 'BEST' license, it is BEST for a given set of circumstances. It is zealots (read - ignorant about other perspectives) who fail to see that one size does NOT fit all.
That was bad wording on my part. I misread the first post, and in retaliation for what I (incorrectly) felt was an attack on the GPL, I allowed myself to be sloppy and omit context from my statement. Certainly, the Monopolysoft EULA is arguably the best license if you work for Monopolysoft, for example.
It's also impossible to take GPL software to add to a project if you do not have rights to all the project code (or only have a license incompatible with the GPL). In this case, too, the GPL would not be a good choice.
The GPL is very useful to prevent having all your work leveraged, extended, and closed by a competitor who then can offer everything you can and more, while locking in customers, customers that would otherwise have greater interest in your project.
Consider Apache. Sun and IBM gain when others extend apache's work because of licensing at a different level and because of the large investments these two have in Java (this applies to others besides these two companies). It would be very costly for them if Java was abandoned wholesale just as it would be very costly to Microsoft if developers abandoned dotregret. It's also possible that many of the Apache projects are not the best work put forward by some of those contributing. Perhaps too contributors don't compete for value at the level where they give away code. Java growing brings value at a different level and preserves their investments. If the big bucks are in services, then you want as large an ecosystem as possible below where you add value. IBM and Sun are also very large companies that can afford to give away code since there aren't that many companies of a size to be able to rival them (they also sell hardware.. perhaps even hardware tuned to the Java model).
Plus, if it weren't for companies like Microsoft, the GPL would not be as popular. In some environments the "forced" sharing the GPL demands is not really necessary. Think of ISO/OOXML and how, with Microsoft on board, a new set of much stricter rules would have been necessary to have prevented abuse. Microsoft was not the threat they are today when BSD came around (the UNIX field also wasn't controlled by one entity). If the BSD bunch would have started their projects today, there would be a larger chance of relying on a license a little more complex than and with more teeth than has the BSD.
To return to the GPL, it is a boon for noncommercial developers that want to collaborate without helping code monopolists. It is a great license for those that own GPL code and can sell commercial licenses. It is a great license for those that provide support and customizations to a fast growing code base and don't want to be blindsighted by a competing project that leverages your code base but adds secrets and breaks compatibility. [Note that IBM and Sun can overmatch most competitors that try to fork. Plus, Java comes with some compat requirements of its own, just ask Apache and Sun.]
I'll stop.
By Martin Espinoza on May. 12, 2008
The OSI did not define the term "Open Source", although they are attempting to REDEFINE it (and you are helping.) See http://slashdot.org/~drinkypoo/journal/175327 for substantially more information; regardless, Shared Source *IS* Open Source, PERIOD, END OF STORY. It's not Microsoft that's confused about what it means; it's the OSI. And, they have managed to confuse you. Those of us who were here and paying attention at the time seem to have fallen into two camps; those who support this move, and those who don't. The third camp is made up of people who are not qualified to discuss the issue...
By Phobos on May. 12, 2008
correction:
you don't have to pay for the non-GPL version of Virtualbox, it is also free
this has been this way long before Sun bought innotek
By an anonymous user on May. 12, 2008
if your software license isn't bsd-ish it will wind up being replaced by something that is anyway. that's just beehive physics.
By an anonymous user on May. 12, 2008
For heaven's sake...let's use our brains...
Just read the text of the GPL. Read about the 4 freedoms. --and find out for yourself why the GPL rocks!
Don't even bother reading one of the endless assortment of Microsoft EULAs. They are all different. Furthermore they are written with weasel words and confusing terminology. They are designed NOT to be understood by anyone. ...Besides that--you haven't read any yet, but have agreed to them a million times already. :)
Now go download a great Linux distribution, such as Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, or Mepis, and try it out to experience how it rocks!
Then install your favorite one on a zillion systems --for free, because you can do that with the GPL.
Just imagine what you can save. Just ask Google or Amazon how much they save with the GPL :)
By an anonymous user on May. 12, 2008
People who shell out good money for worthless crap like Windows deserve what they get, and what they are getting is screwed by one of the most duplictious and spineless little worms of all time, Bill Gates.
By oss sucks on May. 13, 2008
Microsoft was hated by programmers because of their unfair competition and shady business tactics killed many small innovative companies.
Now OSS is doing the same thing and wiping out these small companies by underselling software for the low, low price of $0.
Why should skilled, intelligent programmers make less than burger flippers?
By alex on May. 13, 2008
Maybe RMS just wasn't political enough at the beginning. If he had underlined his use of the term free by saying Free as Free from slavery. People might have got it. To compare it to free beer trivialises it and probably did more harm than good.
Then anyone who didn't understand that it meant freedom would deserve their captivity.
By an anonymous user on May. 13, 2008
xx
Share Your Comments