Why does Humanity need Free Software ?
Free as freedom, not free beer.
Animals fight for domination, despite humans are fighting for their rights.
Open source and closed source software are different in the shape, because in the first case, users have access to the code, which means control, and this is not the case for proprietary software. Microsoft’s analysis of Linux in the Halloween Documents (back to 10 years ago !), and it’s Shared Source Initiative are perfect evidences of it’s fear towards open source. I must admit the Open Source Initiative has been, and is, economically valuable and did a good job for concurrence in the software market. Since open and closed source have to cohabit, all the lights are know focusing on compatibility and interoperability between the two protagonists: Windows and what is known as FOSS/Linux or GNU/Linux.
In the background, open source Linux distributions such as SuSE and Mandriva are more and more Windows-like. Indeed, theses distributions include and promote non-free (proprietary) packages as a feature, which is an aberration. Because open source philosophy often means including proprietary softwares in it’s systems, we are now facing sucking OS hybrids, mixing up free and proprietary softs in the same soup. Consequently, free/libre software must deal with two issues, not only proprietary software, but also its nearest brother: open source.
For many people, open source and free software are the same because both of them give access to the code. Also, some proprietary and open source companies play with the possible misunderstanding of the English term “free software”. Indeed, Microsoft redefined free software while promoting his softwares and tends to give itself a FOSS-like image.
More over, when selecting “Free Software” in Linspire’s software distribution service (CNR, is opensource), most of the listed softwares ARE NOT FREE/libre softwares, BUT are no-payment proprietary software downloads : In one word, THEY ARE FREEWARES ! (not free software).
Gnu, where are you ?
In reality, open source and free software are two movements which act following two different philosophies. Open source is purely economic while free software, which inspired the Free Culture Movement, cares about ethical principles.
Using open source, like free software, gives you the liberty to control your softwares by code access, but open source uses programmers’ knowledge only as a business while free software wants to spread knowledge for a human cause. Human knowledge should bring us to a better living without threatening our rights and freedom, and that’s why a free system would never use non-free (proprietary) packages.
While open source and proprietary software fight for economic domination, free software fights for a free society, free culture and for our rights.
More than about economy, free projects as Wikipedia are truly connecting people together. It harness human knowledge for the good of humanity through giving free worldwide access to culture. It is a democratic breath which blows beyond the frontiers. Indeed, each century had its own improvements and troubles. Women’s rights, black’s rights, these Human’s rights are not gifts, they are the results of intense fight. That’s why knowledge must be spread in order to save what has been earned.
These projects are directly bound to social movements which cares about individuals integrity and world peace. Open source does not care about politics and your rights. The actual capitalism system tends to harm life, liberty and freedom. Don’t take me wrong, I am not talking against capitalism as long as it doesn’t walk on the democracy’s feet. But an economical system which threaten human life, is a system which has to be improved, and that’s what free software tends to do by spreading social values.
Liberty is the right to choose. Freedom is the result of the right choice.
Current discussion about this article: Page 1 & 2 - in Greek/English !
Related Articles :
Freedom will not be brought by Free Software
Why Does Humanity Needs Free Software
Comments
20 Responses to “Why does Humanity need Free Software ?
”
Leave a Reply
-
.
Great article!
I’m always happy to see when somebody seems to understand what free software really is about and how it’s connected to everything else in the world. Free software isn’t just free software, it’s software for a free society!
[...] Oct 31st, 2007 by Gard Ever wondered why humanity needs Free Software? Kin Calvin’s Weblog sums it up pretty nicely in his article Why does Humanity needs Free Software ? [...]
I am glad we share the same views !
I’m sorry to say that, but you are in a great confusion.
Please read:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
I have read them before.
Here are quotes:
As one person put it, “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.
We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don’t want to be lumped in with them.
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.
Now please explain where is your problem. Because, “I’m sorry to say that, but you are in a great misunderstanding”.
Moreover, Open Source and Free Software movement are linked for sure. But I believe Open Source threatens Free Software values as long as Free Software is lumped in with Open Source. Am I wrong about it ?
You missed some quotes:
“The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and too long to cite here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects, so open source supporters have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice.”
(…)
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 about “free software.” (Richard M. Stallman)
Now i’ll quote you:
“open source Linux distributions such as SuSE”
SUSE is not a open source distribution, openSUSE is.
“open source and proprietary software fight for economic domination”, “open source philosophy means including proprietary softwares in it’s systems” are just your opinions, nobody else say this.
““Free software” does not mean “non-commercial”. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.”
“The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same thing as free software. However, their criteria are somewhat lax; they accept some license restrictions that we consider too restrictive.
We prefer the term “free software” because it refers to freedom–something that the term “open source” does not do. (from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html).
The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and too long to cite here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects, so open source supporters have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice.”
-> Yes, in pratice. I know that.
““Free software” does not mean “non-commercial”. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.”
->Thank you, I know that. Free as user’s Freedom, isn’t it ?
“The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same thing as free software. However, their criteria are somewhat lax; they accept some license restrictions that we consider too restrictive.
We prefer the term “free software” because it refers to freedom–something that the term “open source” does not do.
->Again, thank you. I know that.
Now i’ll quote you:
“open source philosophy means including proprietary softwares in it’s systems”
Yes, Open Source distros mostfully include proprietary softwares. I am going to add an “often” in the article to make it clearer.
““open source Linux distributions such as SuSE”
SUSE is not a open source distribution, openSUSE is.”
Learn how to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE
SuSE is OpenSource.
My point exactly is:
Both concepts - “open source” and “free software” - don’t exclude the commercial and economic use. The main difference is licensing terms. We talk about licenses when we talking about the code (source) of a software. The code must remain “open” or “free”? I think the word “open” is better than “free”. Open minds, open code / free minds, free code. These are beautiful words. Freedom is another beatiful word. Like humanity. But these are and remain only words.
They don’t give us power. Economy does. Money, too. Economy and money give us liberty. That liberty that allow us to be free and have open minds.
Yes, Sir, you are right. The Code must remain open / free (whatever you like). If this Code can do money for developers is better.
No, Sir, you wrong: “Free as user’s Freedom, isn’t it?”. Free as developer’s Freedom. That freedom that allow them to code, gain money and maintain the code open / free.
Humanity don’t need Free Software. Humanity needs Open / Free Code.
Disclaimers:
I don’t represent in any way neither “open source” nor “free software” movements. I also didn’t have any relations with closed source software or companies. I use a Linux distribution (Slackware Linux) for personal use. By the way, Slackware Linux is a “open source” or a “free software” distribution ?
Okay, so you are FINALLY exposing your own and personal views. Nice, you should have done this at the very beginning, too bad.
No, Sir, you wrong: “Free as user’s Freedom, isn’t it?”. Free as developer’s Freedom. That freedom that allow them to code, gain money and maintain the code open / free.
GPL is king of restrictive towards developpers you know. We could talk about it, but you do not want to share, just to impose.
Slackware is open source AND free software. To me, you have freedom of choice to make it what ever you want it to be
“GPL is king of restrictive towards developers”
GPL or GPLv3?
I think the main idea behind GPLv3 is to protect the rights of authors (original developers) and, in this way, to keep original source code under this license. If I modify the source code and then I release this work under another license, the original developers do keep the whole rights about the original code under GPLv3 and another developers can still use it.
But GPLv3 does contain a danger word “Patents”. It can produce confusions.
IMHO, the author must have the right to license his work under any license he wants. If the source code remain open / free, then that work is Free / Open Software.
PS. I don’t want to impose nothing. This is my opinion. Right or wrong.
Finally, I understand your point!
“Ethically, I now it would have been better to keep using Dotclear, which is free software (and French !) than using this Open Source American software …”
Why Dotclear is free software? “DotClear utilise deux classes PHP réalisées par …”. These classes are under
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php
Apropos, where are the sources for “The GNU/Linux Way” Theme?
In short, I lost my time
Source in the .zip and Dotclear is under GNU GPL Licence and not an Open Source project.
I am losing my time too.
ls -R -l ~/Desktop/hitman | grep Thumb
-rw-r–r– 1 gabriel users 36864 2007-10-21 02:14 Thumbs.db
-rw-r–r– 1 gabriel users 29184 2007-10-20 19:27 Thumbs.db
-rw-r–r– 1 gabriel users 28160 2007-10-20 19:29 Thumbs.db
No comment!
Hey Sherlock Holmes, if you want to know if I have dual boot, just need to ask.
You are just playing and yes, waisting our time.
Hi all!
Very much for a long time searched for article on this theme.Thanks.
Bye
[...] Also see: Why Does Humanity Needs Free Software [...]
Nice blog btw
Thanks for your interesting article
First of all congratulation for such a great site. I learned a lot reading article here today. I will make sure i visit this site once a day so i can learn more.