philcrissman.com

It had to happen eventually; it seems that some people have just as hard a time wrapping their heads around what “Open Source” means as they did with “Free”.

PTP’s review of 3 linux desktops displays this misunderstanding clearly:

One of the first choices to make is whether to go with an open source version or with a commercial version of Linux. For arguments sake, and to keep costs as low as possible, let’s say an open source version is best to cut your teeth on. There are no up front costs and several to choose from.

Okay… wait a minute.

All “commercial” versions of Linux are Open Source. They have to be; that’s the whole point of the GPL. Some of them may provide a few proprietary binaries, but “Linux” is Open, whether is it’s Red Hat or Fedora, Novell or Suse, Ubuntu, Linspire or Freespire.

This quote is just using Open Source as a synonym for “free” (as is beer).

The funny thing is, the term “Open Source” was coined for the express purpose of clearing up the confusion around what “free” meant.

You may be aware that Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation make much of what they really mean when they say “Free Software” — the canonical explanation is that “Free Software is free as in freedom, not as in beer.” That is, you might have to pay for Free software — but you are free to do with it, or it’s source code, whatever you want.

Some people found this confusing, or at least saw the potential for confusion. Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond are usually cited as having coined and popularized the term “Open Source”. This term was supposed to clear up the confusion — it might not be “free” (as in costing-no-money), but the source was open.

The quoted passage from the above article seems to indicate that this hasn’t worked, either. Apparently, for some people “open source” has begun to mean “free” (as in costing-no-money) as well — otherwise, why contrast “open source” with commercial Linuxes?

If Debian started charging money for each download — which would not contradict the GPL in any way — it would not stop being “open source” (or “free software”, if you prefer). The status of the openness of the code would not change in the slightest.

The terms “Open Source” and “Free Software” have nothing at all to do with whether or not money is changing hands for the software.

The question is, will this perception ever change, and, should we care? So the article cited implies by the dichotomy that commercial versions of Linux are not Open Source — which is incorrect — what difference does it make? It might make a whole lot of difference to the FSF or to Eric or to Slashdot (because, hey, something to argue about again!), but does it matter to your boss? Does it matter to you?

The OSI was a valiant attempt to clear up the confusion, and all that has resulted is that some people now think that open source == free (as in costing-no-money), and therefore commercial Linux (or other software) must not be open source.

I guess we shouldn’t say it doesn’t “matter” — if I thought it didn’t matter at all, I wouldn’t be posting about it. However, you should always choose your battles — and I, for one, don’t think that the concept of “Free” or “Open Source” will enter into mainstream consciousness in the near future.