From b2ea7f920c2cdaa1b651021432a0e3d0d7a9a9a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jrtechs Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:59:56 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Finished first draft of lit review2 --- .../posts/open-source/foss-vs-floss.md | 123 +++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 87 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) diff --git a/blogContent/posts/open-source/foss-vs-floss.md b/blogContent/posts/open-source/foss-vs-floss.md index 7a3a818..114098f 100644 --- 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. +