Finished first draft of lit review2

4 years ago · b2ea7f920c
--- a/blogContent/posts/open-source/foss-vs-floss.md
+++ b/blogContent/posts/open-source/foss-vs-floss.md
@ -1,47 +1,98 @@
 Last week for HFOSS(Humanitarian Free and Open Source Software IGME-582) at RIT I 
 was introduced to three articles that pick apart the differences between
 "Free Software" and "Open Source Software" or "FOSS" and "FLOSS".
 Last week for HFOSS(Humanitarian Free and Open Source Software
 IGME-582) at RIT I  was introduced to three articles that picked apart
 the differences between Free Software and Open Source Software.  

 - [How I coined the term 'open source' by Christine Peterson](https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software)
 - [When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior by Benjamin Mako Hill](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html)
 - [Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software by Richard Stallman](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html)

 Peterson's article discussed how she ended up coining the term Open Source and how
 that term ended up becoming widely used. She explained that Open Source software
 was a new word for Free Software that was used instead because it would be more
 friendly with businesses. At that time(and still to this point) Free software is
 confused with software that you can get at no cost. Free Software is really free
 as in speech rather than free as in beer. Peterson's phrase "Open Source"
 gained a foot hold with larger communities and businesses because it focused on
 the practical benefits of doing software development in a public manner. Open Source 
 software focused on collaboration and how building software in the public could 
 improve security -- this really enticed businesses. To this day we see that
 businesses like Microsoft latch on to the phrase Open Source. 

 //todo image of microsoft hearts open source

 With this divide in phrasing, there was a ideological split as well. People like
 Stallman in the Free Software camp felt like the Open Source movement lacks integrity
 because they don't focus on Freedom like they do. In his article "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software",
 Stallman scarfs at the fact that some open source Linux distributions would offer the option
 to package proprietary(non-free) software.


 In Hill's article he echoes the views of Stallman's article, however, he points out
 that in practice Free Software isn't doing "better" than Open Source Software.
 The median number of contributors to a SourceForge free software project is one.
 The large success of Open Source Software is large in due to the fact that it is
 able to draw in more developers and retain financial support from companies.

 Despite the large overlap between Open Source software and Free Software, there
 are a few key distinctions. At a high level you can say that Free Software favors freedom,
 however, that is putting it in a very vague notion that can be interpreted in many ways.
 You could also put it in terms of the four R's of Free Software:
 Peterson's article discussed how she coined the term Open Source and
 how that term became widely used. She explained that "Open Source" was
 a new term to replace "Free Software" because it would resonate better
 with businesses. At that time(and still to this day) Free software was
 confused with software that you can get at no cost; Free Software is
 really free as in speech rather than free as in beer. Peterson's
 phrase "Open Source" gained a foot hold with larger communities and
 businesses because it focused on the practical benefits of doing
 software development in a public manner. Open Source software focused
 on collaboration and how building software in the public could improve
 security -- this really enticed businesses. To this day we see that
 businesses like Microsoft latch on to the phrase Open Source.   

 ![Microsoft Loves open source](media/floss/microsoft-linux.jpg)
 *Image: [Microsoft](https://news.microsoft.com/)*

 The divergence in phrasing represented an ideological split in the
 community. People like Stallman in the Free Software camp felt like
 the Open Source movement lacked integrity because they don't focus on
 freedom. In his article "Why Open Source misses the point of Free
 Software", Stallman almost mocks the fact that some open source Linux
 distributions would even offer the option to package
 proprietary(non-free) software. This ideological split is often
 referred to as "FOSS" vs "FLOSS". FOSS means for "Free and Open Source
 Software" where FLOSS means "Free/Libre Open Source software". 

 ![Ven diagram of open source vs free software](media/floss/diagram.png)

 Hill echoes the views of Stallman in his article, however, he points
 out that in practice Free Software isn't doing "better" than Open
 Source Software or proprietary software. The median number of
 contributors to a SourceForge  project is one. The large success of
 Open Source Software is large in due to the fact that it is able to
 draw in more developers and retain financial support from companies. 
 It is also important to point out that most projects on Github
 currently have no license making them neither Open Source or Free
 software. Hill also re-emphasizes Stallman's point that excellent code
 can be written  in proprietary applications. The major difference is
 where the focus on freedom is. 

 # What's the big difference?

 Despite the large overlap between Open Source and Free Software, there
 are a few key distinctions. At a high level you can say that Free
 Software favors freedom, however, that is putting it in a vague notion
 that can be interpreted in many ways. You could also put it in terms
 of the [four R's of Free
 Software](https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/4freedoms.en.html):  

 - Read
 - Run
 - Repurpose
 - Redistribute

 However, I like to analyze the differences between FOSS and FLOSS by looking at license types
 that they use. 
 If you really want to know if software is Free Software, you can
 examine each of the four R's and ask yourself if the software is
 compliant with these standards. This is helpful since not all open
 source projects are compliant with the four R's of software freedom.
 However, I like to analyze the differences between FOSS and FLOSS by
 looking at the three major license types.  

 ![License types](media/floss/types.png)

 Although these are not distinct lines, most people that are hard core
 FLOSS people favor copyleft licensing where Open Source projects
 typically favor permissive licensing. Permissive licensing would be
 favored by companies because it enables them to easily use Open Source
 software in proprietary applications and mix it with other
 applications. Copyleft licensing like the GPL v3 is favored by Free
 Software because it prevents people from mixing their software with
 non-free software. An example of this would be Android where non-free
 components are mixed with the Linux kernel due to more permissive
 nature of the GPL v2. 

 # Why does this matter?

 At times this divide feels like petty hair splitting. However, the
 FOSS vs FLOSS mindset directly influences licensing which has serious
 ramifications on how you can use  software. Making your program GPL
 compliant can be a serious hassle for companies looking to use Free
 Software. 

 # What should we do moving forward?

 While many within FLOSS community may mock and tease companies trying
 to  enter the Open Source world, I believe that we should embrace it.
 We still need to remain vigilant in ensuring that the software we uses
 protects our privacy, but, having more corporate involvement in the
 open source sphere will help us move away from black box software.