Free software can also get the essence of freedom even without free naming, but we still want this name.
The reason is: The name representative means that different words are conducted different philosophy.
In 1998, some people of the Free Software Community began to use the `` open source software (Open Source Software) '' to replace the name of `` Free Software ''. The word "open source", quickly connect to different mentality, different thinking, different value, and even a new test ruler of freedom. Now, the free software movement and open source movement have each other. Although the practical two work together, the foundation has different vision and different goals.
The difference between the two movements in the basic level, tie their value beliefs, and how they look at the world. In terms of open source movement, the source code is essential to the software scattering system, not a moral appeal.
Someone said, "Open source is a methodology of development software; free software is social campaign."
Open source movement believes that non-free software (non-free Software) is also an ideal case. The free software movement believes that the existence of non-free software is characterized by the existence of social problems, and the free software is the solution.
The relationship between two sports
Imagine the Free Software Community is a country, two sports routes are like two political parties within a country.
In the 1960s, the activities of the radical group have enabled people to have such awareness of the party's dispute: the organizational cutting caused the inconsistency of the inconsistency of the policies and the objection to the enemy. Or at least, no matter whether this cognition is very historical, people's impression is probably like.
Between free and open of two sports camps, it is completely different from the above. Their basic principles are different, but the principle of the practice level is substantially the same. Both can achieve a specific project. Free camp does not use open camp as an enemy. Private power software is enemies.
Free Software Actors do not object to open source motion, but this does not mean that both can be passionately painted. We admit that `` open source 'has contributed to the free software community, however, we expect people to recognize that the start of the free software community is rooted in the concept of `` Free Software' '. For our results, we expect people to associate the value beliefs and philosophy of free software, not the concept of Lenovo to open the source. We want people to see us, we don't want to hide after the rays of `` Open Source ''. In order to free from `` Free '', we are treated as `` open '', we are reluctant to avoid the use of `` Open (open) '' this eye called free software, nor using `` non-open, closed (Closed) '' title is non-free software.
So when you talk about our as asks, and talk about our software - such as a GNU / Linux operating system, please say: Free Software, not the crown of his name.
Comparison of two wording
Comparison of two wording for `` Free Software '' and `` Open Source ''. Tell you why `` Open Source '' clauses do not solve all problems, but make other problems.
Languor
This name `` Free Software '' contains ambiguous point, leading to an unexpected explanation: "Free payable software"; at the same time, it also contains the meaning of its attempt to convey: "Software gives the user". " We have more precise definitions to be in response to problems, but the definition of light cars cannot completely eliminate obstacles. If you can find a precise correct wording, a wording that does not cause other questions, it is of course better. Worse, all English words that can be replaced `` free '', have their own problems. We tried the words of the parties to suggest, and did not find a word that can be solemn. Each proposal has a similar semantic suspicion, even more miserable, including `` OpenSource Software ''.
For the official definition of two sports camps (official definition), `` Open source software '' is almost equal to `` free software ''; however, some aspects `` open source '' is slightly loose, and they introduced Partial terms are restrained to the user, and we cannot accept our consideration.
In addition, `` open source '' obviously indicates "You can view the source code". This judgment is thinner than the free software you want, as it can include free software, but other semi-free software and certain private rights software can be mixed.
`` Open Source '' meaning it, has been separated from the protocol of the original initiator. As a result, most people misunderstand its original intention. Take a look at how the writer Neal Stephenson explains the `` Open source '':
Linux is open source software, which means that of course, no matter who can get its software source code.
I think Neal Stephenson does not solemnly understand the official definition of `` open source ''. I think he is just a simple as the name. In the official statement of the Kansas government, it also shows similar degree of cognition:
Open source software utility level. Its program source code can be freedom and publicly circulated. As for what users can do, they can take advantage of their source code.
Of course, as we define the heartwind of `` Free Software '', some people who advocate open source have also tried to make more precise definitions.
However, the explanation of `` free software '' is simple. Let us read this sentence "Free Beer", only to grasp the one in which `` free '' is bound, no one can not misselect the free software `` FREE ' 'Means. As for `` open source '', there is no such concise cover formal definition scheme, which simultaneously shows that we don't have to use `` open source '' to be called free software.
Fear free
The main purpose of `` Open Source Software '' is disturbed by some people. That is the truth:
Talk about the topics of freedom, talk about the topics of moral ethics, talk about public obligations, and equity, etc. That will trigger emotions, and the resistance of some people. Because the concept of `` free '', endanger "the masses don't care about these things, and maintain social stability".
A few years ago, the free software developers pay attention to the problem of problem, and began to explore new thinking exempt from the difficulties. They realized that if they stay silent for ethics and free philosophy, they only measure free software that can immediately bring substantive benefits, they may be more efficiently "sales" appropriate software to applicable customers, especially in the business community. The `` open source '' concept is just a practice, because the source code "makes the business world more satisfied". Open the new field of view and new value, this is like this.
This thinking has been empirically operated in accordance with this concept. Today, many people in the `` free '' are purely practical reasons for this. This is very good so far, but we don't think so! Attracting people to accept free software is part of the work, it is just the first step across.
For users who turn to free software due to the above purposes, any considerations of the actual interests have emerged, and the software will be changed sooner or later. A large number of software companies attempt to design new profit pipelines, will users refuse to confuse? Unless they understand the freedom of freedom from assessing the freedom of freedom - completely consumed the value of freedom. This concept depends on our spread, and we must talk to freedom for practice. The "silent" mentioned earlier is quite helpful to our community, but we look forward to understanding "freedom" more.
Now our community's "silent" is very small, but it is very lacking for freedom - discussion. Most participating in the free software may rarely talk about freedom for "more satisfying business world". Software salesers are particularly tended to this posture. Some gnu / linux operating system package, attached to this free spirit of software, and they encourage users to regard as the interests, not telling them that this is in the free road.
We can't catch up with users of each free software, and they don't know their world's knowledge while they use free software. This is, for example, the non-free software such as QT and the distributors of some "non-free operating systems" can be in this fertile farming. We don't give up the `` free '' 'words due to 噎 噎; we need more, not less, more about free rights and interests.
Because of the attraction of `` open source '', it has brought more users to invest in our community. Of course, it is contributing, but we may have a more expenity to let them listen to the "freedom" to the ear, we must be more I am more noisy, "It is free software, free software to give you free!"
Is the trademark useful?
The initiator of `` Open Source 'software, I want to let the idea turn into a trademark, think that it can avoid the word abuse. Later, I gave up the original intention, because it is a description, it is not a name, it is difficult to pass the trademark certification rules; the results, the journey is not subject to statutory "with` `. Software ''." I have heard that many software companies' products are still known as `` opensource '' names of `` opensource '' even if they do not match the formal definition of the source code; I also kiss a few examples.
Transfer the usual use to a trademark to change the situation? Not really.
The manufacturer publishes a public statement that is unclear to make people feel the impression of its product. For example, IBM does not match the product that does not match `` Open '', this claim: as an open source community, we ... a ... a technology product user, can also participate in IBM research and development ...
This statement did not indeed point out the source code, and many people who heard the news would not pay attention. (I have to tell the reader honestly, and later IBM really tried to make it free software and introduced several terms to make it `` free '' and `Open Source ''; only, the above statement started, It does not match `` free '' nor `` open ''.)
Second cases, Cygnus Solutions is originally a company that forms a free software, and then expands its business to private rights software, which makes such propaganda for private rights:
Cygnus Solutions leaders in open source market and puts two products in [GNU /] Linux market.
Unlike IBM, Cygnus Solutions did not want to turn its products to free software, and their nature did not tend to free software. Cygnus Solutions did not name the `` Open source software '', only their wording is enough to confuse the audio.
The above two shows that the trademark cannot eliminate confusion with the `` Open source '' word.
abuse? Open source
In fact, the definition of open source code is clear enough, and it is clear that the typical non-free software does not match the spirit of open. So, is you think of "Open Source Company" products, of course, (or very close) free software, is it? Hey, many companies want to give other means for `` open source ''.
At the meeting, several invited business software companies said that they can make them free software (or open) Source code). Their career is still developing other private attachments (software or manuals) to sell free software customers. They want us to agree with the legitimacy of this move to become a member of our community, because they are willing to provide some profit and sponsoring free software development.
In essence, they want to win the status of `` Open Source '' for their (not open source), only because they are a bit source with free software, or they actually develop several free software. (The founder of a company, the truth of their true heart, the community of free software itself is the most powerful reinforcement of free software, and they are therefore easy.)
A few years ago, many companies put into free software development. Some of these companies will focus on non-free software, but they also allocate resources for free software; so we can indifferent their other products, and cooperate with them to develop free software. We sincerely thank them for their contribution to free software, and there is no non-free software career that they are engaged in them.
We don't have a law with the aforementioned new company, in fact they do not allow. These companies are actively fascinating, trying to mix free and non-free two-size things; they intend to stupid, admit that they are the same as our non-free software products. They dressed their own as "open source software company", thinking that we will raise their feelings and be confused on this issue. They are smart text games, if they are played as `` Free Software ''. But they don't seem to use the `` free software '' ''; perhaps `` free '' This word is inevitable to loses idealism, but it becomes the object that the businessman does not touch. Just a wording of `` open source '', give them opportunities to make literature.
In 1998, the business exhibition, especially the operating system related to `` linux '' is when Hongjiu, the executive from a famous software company has a moving speech. He may be invited to explain his company "support" Linux's determination. Not a wonderful thing, their "support" means that their Non-Free software is mixed into the Free operating system - easy to say, they want to sell by the community, not to contribute.
He said. "There is no possibility of our public code source, but we may agree to` pair 'public source code. If we allow our customers' system support department to touch the source code, they can exclude the dish and cons of the program. Supply better products and services. "(I didn't have a note on the spot, here the words only seek interest, with the original speech")))
After the speech is over, a listener in the seat told me "He didn't mention the focus at all." Is it? I am thinking that his vague skill is really a network.
His conversation has not missed open source movement. Open source movement is really not advocating that users should have freedom, and only the source opening will promote software development faster. The speaker did understand this; only the spirit of the opening of the open source, he intends to eliminate the ordinary users, only partial with company customers.
He is not interested in care, and it is also an original intention of `` open source '' omissions: the free rights of users.
The concept of spreading free rights is a great effort - so you need to work together. That is the reason why we insist on using the GNU engineering `` 'This wording, it is conducive to the promotion of this business. If you agree, the importance of freedom and community concept - not just the real interests of it - please join us, please use `` free software ''. This article allows you to post in any form of media without changing the documentation, but you need to retain this statement.
