Have you ever wondered what the difference is between the terms “free software” and “open-source software?” Perhaps, you think they are the same. It is often misunderstood that “free” refers to free of cost. The term “FOSS” is also very common. It expands to Free and Open Source Software. In addition, I have heard people say that since the software is open source and available free of cost, therefore it is denoted by the term FOSS. In this post, I’ll illustrate the difference between the two terms.
Free Software refers to software which respects users freedom to run, study, modify, share and share the modified versions of the software. For example, VLC media player, Firefox browser, and Emacs. “Free” in Free Software refers to liberty, not price. The software I just mentioned also qualify as Open Source. The definition of Open Source can be read on the opensource.org website by visiting this link. Since it is a bit too long, I didn’t include it here.
Practically speaking, the terms “free software” and “open source software” refer to the same class of software. However, the main difference between the two terms lies not in the actual software, but the values behind the respective movements. Free Software movement campaigns for users’ freedom and that users must control the software running in their own devices. On the other hand, Open Source movement does not put the issue in ethical terms like users’ freedoms or rights, but more of like a practical choice.
The term “free software” existed since 1984, while the term “open source” came into existence in 1998. Let’s look at why this new term was introduced even though the term “free software” was already there.
Quoting Open Source Initiative on coining the term open source,
The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code. The strategy session grew from a realization that the attention around the Netscape announcement had created an opportunity to educate and advocate for the superiority of an open development process. The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label “free software.” Brainstorming for this new label eventually converged on the term “open source”, originally suggested by Christine Peterson.
It is apparent from the above-mentioned quote that the term “Open Source” was coined as a way to market the same idea represented by the term “Free Software” in a way detached from philosophical or moral considerations. It was promoted as a superior model of software development, not as a matter of user rights or freedom.
My friend and fellow Free Software activist Praveen has put this difference into a nice quote, which is very relevant to distinguish the two:
Open Source wants to create better software, Free Software wants to create a better society.
Quoting Richard Stallman from his famous article on the difference and the dangers that the approach open source movement has in avoiding the ethics part:
When open source proponents talk about anything deeper than that, it is usually the idea of making a “gift” of source code to humanity. Presenting this as a special good deed, beyond what is morally required, presumes that distributing proprietary software without source code is morally legitimate.
This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even develop, free software, which has extended our community—but only at the superficial, practical level. The philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it. That is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom secure. Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.
Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies gratis. Why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free software. To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.
The difference between the two movements is best illustrated by an incident in which TiVo - a video recorder - used a software which was free/open-source and gave users legal right to modify it, but the hardware won’t allow users to run their modified versions. This restriction was fine for Open Source proponents like Linus Torvalds, but Free Software proponents like Stallman opposed such restrictions. A new version of GNU General Public License was written by the Free Software Foundation to address this issue. For more details on this, I would suggest you to read this page on the GNU website. Moreover, you can read the Wikipedia page too by clicking here.
Personally, I use the term “Free Software” and not “Open Source” due to my opposition against proprietary software. Furthermore, I agree with the ethical values associated with the term “Free Software”. Using this term helps me spread awareness about the difference and propagate the ethical values.
Feel free to use the term you prefer, but it is important to understand what the term means.