223 lines
10 KiB
HTML
223 lines
10 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>Free Software, Open Source, FOSS, FLOSS - same same but different</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body id="article">
|
|
<p id="category">
|
|
<a href="/freesoftware/freesoftware.html">Free Software</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h1>Free Software, Open Source, FOSS, FLOSS - same same but different</h1>
|
|
|
|
<div id="introduction">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
There are two major terms connected to software you can freely use,
|
|
study, share and improve: Free Software and Open Source. Based on
|
|
them you can also find different combinations and translations like
|
|
FOSS, Libre Software, FLOSS and so on. So why do people use these
|
|
terms, and how are they different from one another?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Historical background</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Historically, Free Software was the first term, created 1986 together
|
|
with the <a href="/about/basics/freesoftware.html">Free Software
|
|
definition</a>. In 1997 Debian, a project aiming to create a completely free
|
|
and community based GNU/Linux distribution, developed the Debian Free
|
|
Software Guidelines
|
|
(<a href="http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines">DFSG</a>) as a
|
|
check-list whether a program can be included in the distribution or
|
|
not. One year later, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) was set up as a
|
|
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20021217003716/http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.html">marketing
|
|
campaign for Free Software</a>. It introduced
|
|
the <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">Open Source definition</a>
|
|
by copying the DFSG and replacing "Free Software" with "Open
|
|
Source". According to
|
|
a <a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html">public
|
|
statement</a> by Bruce Perens, one of the founders of the OSI and author
|
|
of the DFSG and Open Source Definition, the Open Source term was intended
|
|
as a synonym for Free Software. Perens eventually decided to return to
|
|
the roots of the movement and to speak about Free Software again. Thanks
|
|
to their shared roots, both Open Source and Free Software describe the
|
|
complete set and the whole range of software licenses that give users the
|
|
right to use, study, share and improve the software<a class="fn"
|
|
href="#fn1">1</a>.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
In the course of time people came up with additional labels for the same
|
|
set of software. Today terms such as Libre Software, FOSS (Free and Open
|
|
Source Software) or FLOSS (Free, Libre and Open Source Software) are
|
|
often used to describe Free Software. In some cases people also use terms
|
|
like "organic software" or "ethical software". Often the motivation for
|
|
these terms is to stay out of the terminology debate and to avoid
|
|
confusion through words like "open" or "free". These terms tend to cause
|
|
confusion, because they virtually invite people to look for differences
|
|
between the terms where actually no differences exists, regarding the
|
|
software they describe.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
This short summary of the historical origin of the different terms should
|
|
show that at the end all of them have the same root and refer to the same
|
|
set of software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Who uses which term, and why?</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
The Free Software movement is a large and diverse community. People have
|
|
different interests in Free Software and different reasons to
|
|
participate. But these differences don't necessarily connect with the
|
|
terms they use. A lot of people use the term Open Source even while
|
|
highlighting the social and political dimension of Free Software while on
|
|
the other hand there are people in our community who prefer the term
|
|
Free Software but concentrate more on the practical benefits. Whether
|
|
someone says Open Source or Free Software isn't necessarily an indication
|
|
of their motivation.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Beside individuals there are also many well known organisations in the
|
|
Free Software ecosystem. Many of them play an important role and
|
|
emphasize different aspects of Free Software. For example, some
|
|
organisations focus on the technical direction of Free Software projects,
|
|
some on legal aspects, some on political, social and ethical aspects and
|
|
some focus on license evaluation. These organisations typically have
|
|
decided to use one or another term and stick to it. But this should not
|
|
lead to the conclusion that the term they use is the critical factor
|
|
regarding their motivations. The critical factor are the people driving
|
|
the organisation and the goals of the organisation as such. The practical
|
|
experience with different organisations and people in the community shows
|
|
that the line can't be drawn along the language they use.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
This diversity is good, as it shows that Free Software provides many
|
|
advantages in many different areas of our life. But we should not divide
|
|
our community just by the term someone prefers. No matter what term
|
|
someone uses and what their initial motivation is, in the end they works
|
|
on the same set of software and on the enhancement of software freedom
|
|
and any other aspect of Free Software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>License evaluation</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
There are three widely recognized entities in the Free Software movement
|
|
that regularly evaluate licenses: The <a href="http://www.fsf.org">Free
|
|
Software Foundation</a>, the <a href="http://www.debian.org">Debian
|
|
project</a> and the <a href="http://www.opensource.org">Open Source
|
|
Initiative</a>. When asked whether a particular license gives software
|
|
users the freedom to use, study, share and improve the program, they
|
|
almost always come to the same conclusions.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Does Copyleft make the difference?</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Looking at Free Software licenses there are two main categories,
|
|
protective or <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/">Copyleft</a>
|
|
licenses and non-protective licenses. While Copyleft licenses are
|
|
designed to protect the rights to use, study, share and improve the
|
|
software non-protective licenses allow to distribute the software without
|
|
those rights. Sometimes people think that the terms Free Software and
|
|
Open Source are used to distinguish between Copyleft and non-Copyleft
|
|
licenses. The lists of Free Software licenses by Debian, the FSF and the
|
|
OSI show that both protective and non-protective licenses comply with the
|
|
Free Software definition and the Open Source definition. This means that
|
|
neither the terms Open Source and Free Software nor the different
|
|
definitions are suitable to distinguish between Copyleft and non-Copyleft
|
|
licenses.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<center>
|
|
<img src="/freesoftware/basics/softwaremodels.png" alt="This graphic
|
|
should visualise the different software categories and their
|
|
connection" title="This graphic visualises the different software
|
|
categories and their connection"/>
|
|
</center>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Protective licenses and non-protective licenses are sub-classes of Free
|
|
Software licenses recognized by the Open Source Initiative and the
|
|
FSF. Copyleft or non-Copyleft is not a criteria suitable to distinguish
|
|
between Open Source and Free Software, both terms describe the same set
|
|
of software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Development model</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
The way a program is developed can be a crucial factor in its success or
|
|
failure. But whether a program is written in an open, participatory
|
|
process or behind closed doors doesn't tell us whether it is non-free or
|
|
Free Software.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
When looking at software we have to distinguish between the software
|
|
model and the development model. While the software model describes the
|
|
attributes of the software (e.g. free or proprietary) the development
|
|
model describes different ways to develop software. As discussed in
|
|
detail
|
|
in <a href="/freesoftware/enterprise/freesoftwarecompany.html">"What
|
|
makes a Free Software company?"</a> the different software development
|
|
models are defined independently of the software model and work for both
|
|
Free Software and proprietary software. Models that leverage the
|
|
advantage of an open and collaborative community can show their full
|
|
strength in combination with the Free Software model. However this does
|
|
not mean that any program developed in an open, collaborative development
|
|
process is Free Software. There are Free Software projects developed by a
|
|
single person or a company with little or no outside input. On the other
|
|
hand developers of proprietary software have adapted collaborative
|
|
development models to fit into their software model, e.g. SAP with its
|
|
partnership program.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h2>Why we call it Free Software</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
If all these terms describe the same set of programs, why do we at FSFE
|
|
insist on using the term Free Software?
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Free Software is all about your freedom. That's a message we want to get
|
|
across loud and clear. Language is important because it frames how people
|
|
think about a subject. The different terms focus on different aspects,
|
|
even if they describe the same software. Freedom is a core value of Free
|
|
Software, and our language reflects this. This makes Free Software the
|
|
right choice for FSFE and we invite you
|
|
to <a href="/documents/whyfs">follow us</a>.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="fn">Footnotes</h2>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li id="fn1">
|
|
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/">Copyleft</a> licenses, licenses
|
|
designed to protect those rights, are a subclass of Free Software
|
|
licenses recognized by the Open Source Initiative and the FSF.
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
<timestamp>$Date: 2010-04-23 15:56:18 +0100 (Mon, 23 May 2010) $ $Author: Bjoern Schiessle$</timestamp>
|
|
<author id="schiessle" />
|
|
<date>
|
|
<original content="2012-12-08" />
|
|
</date>
|
|
</html>
|
|
|