RMS wrote:When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects
the
users' essential freedoms:
the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute
copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not
price, so think of “free speech,” not “free
beer.”
These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just
for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social
solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even
more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized.
In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free
software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.
Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software;
the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to
use the free
GNU/Linux operating
system. Most of these users, however, have never heard of the ethical
reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software
community, because nowadays this system and community are more often
spoken of as “open source”, attributing them to a different
philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.
The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
freedom since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free
operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating
systems that deny freedom to their users. During the 1980s, we
developed most
of the essential components of the system and designed
the
GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) to release them under—a
license designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a
program.
Not all of the users and developers of free software
agreed with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part
of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in
the name of “open source.” The term was originally
proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free
software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical
views quite different from those of the free software movement.
Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a
“marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal
to business executives by highlighting the software's practical
benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might
not like to hear. Other
supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and
social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for
open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values.
The term “open source” quickly became associated with
ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or
having powerful,
reliable software. Most of the supporters of open
source have come to it since then, and they make the same association.
Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms
describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for
views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a
development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the
free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
because only free software respects the users' freedom. By contrast,
the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make
software “better”—in a practical sense only. It
says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical
problem at hand. For the free software movement, however, nonfree
software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and
move to free software.
“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software, does it
matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey
different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give
you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way
depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to
help do this, it is essential to speak of “free
software.”
We in the free software movement don't think of the open source
camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But
we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
mislabeled as open source supporters.