I've made this topic just to discuss a possible misunderstanding made by me,
on the difference between the two movements. I started to think about this
possibility quite recently, after tireless chatting sessions with the free
software activists from Brazil.
This discussion isn't meant to spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt. That means
this discussion seeks to enlighten those who are uncertain of the differences
between these two movements, and also serves to strengthen our overall
knowledge, not localizing the acquired knowledge just to a subset of our
activists or supporters/followers.
Until recently, I thought that the supporters of the Open Source Definition
didn't care much for the licenses they used for their project. And so I
thought that under this definition, software development wouldn't care if the
result depends on things with no license and with no source code available
(considering only functional data), or things with restrictive licenses such
as the Sybase Open Watcom Public License version 1.0[1][2][3].
However, after having a chat with a Brazilian nicknamed Aurium (which, if I'm
not mistaken, is the one who made the bold gnu head[6]), and after rereading
the article from the GNU project which states that the Open Source Definition
doesn't share the same goals as the Free Software Definition[5], and also
after having a chat with another free software activist from Brazil, called
Anahuac, along many other people which I forgot the names, I have found some
interesting information that I want to discuss further:
1. It seems that, just because a might-be-free software recommends or
suggests non-free software, it doesn't make the software non-free.
2. Also, as far as I know by now, a might-be-free software which depends on
non-free software is non-free. Except in the cases where the software which
uses the dependency has a goal to replace the non-free dependency partially,
or as a whole.
3. Due to the informations in 1 and 2, it seems that using the licensing
differences as main argument isn't strong enough.
4. Due to the information in 1, 2 and 3, the strongest difference between the
Open Source Definition and the Free Software Definition seems to be that: The
Open Source Definition doesn't have a provision against tivoization,
restricted boot or digital restrictions/rights management (DRM).
5. Considering 1, 2, 3, and 4. In practice, this means that, even if the
complete corresponding source is available and correctly licensed to the
effect that all the functional data (in which software is included) is
"free", and all non-functional data can, at least, be redistributed
non-commercially ("redistributed non-commercially" = "shared"), the resulting
work can contain, under the Open Source Definition at least, mechanisms which
deny the users' freedom towards the functional data like, as stated earlier:
tivoization, restricted boot or digital restrictions/rights management (DRM),
and other mechanisms which prevent the user to exercise the freedom to use
adaptations of the functional data (freedom 0).
6. Supporters of the Open Source Definition generally appeal to consumer
values to get trust from society, like prioritizing security or ease of use.
Similar to the Dale Carnegie compromise, according to "Avoiding Ruinous
Compromises" which is available at the GNU project's website[4].
7. If we consider 5 to be the main difference, then the Linux kernel source
is free and open source, but some resulting builds could be non-free software
due to the way they're made[5]. This could be the true reason as to why
Linux-libre is needed.
8. If we consider 5 to be the main difference, and take into account item 1,
then we must question why some projects aren't free software and others are,
for example: OpenOffice (has no clear policy regarding the inclusion of
non-free extensions in the extensions repositories it hosts or recommends)
and LibreOffice (which apparently just removes the OpenOffice extensions
repositories). Firefox and Thunderbird don't count to this issue because both
check for signatures in the add-ons, and there's no easy way to disable it
for unsigned add-ons or for all add-ons (confirmation message or visible and
understandable option to toggle by normal users), and Firefox will have DRM
support shortly.
So, for those who have read my rather long comments explaining trying to
explain the differences between the two, and for those who have been
influence by these comments: Please accept my apology, and take the time to
read this topic, its comments, and also comment if you want.
As an addendum, I would also like to bring some other questions, which were
also brought by other free software activists and supporters/followers from
Brazil (my current opinions/answers are expressed below each question,
although they can change in the future):
1. Do you think that non-free software should be installed by us to a
computer user, if for example, we can't manage to buy hardware (either
charging the user, or by charity or crowd-funding between us) to replace the
hardware which requires non-free software to work?
1. My answer: For me, personally, I wouldn't install it, unless the user is
held responsible for my actions and so agrees to represent me, because, if
someone comes to me asking about the service, I wouldn't need to justify my
action, the user would have to do it for me. The main reason for this is that
it's a ruinous compromise, and spreads the moral dilemma caused by the
absence of the essential freedoms.
2. Do you think that we can recommend or teach the user how to use the
non-free software, specifically speaking (such as a command which is only
available to that non-free software)?
2. My answer: I personally think that it is unethical. However, since the
"specifically" word is there, if the user asks me how to place a shortcut in
GNOME 3 for his Lightworks video editor, then I would gladly teach him how to
use GNOME 3 for that goal. The main reason for this is that it's a ruinous
compromise, and spreads the moral dilemma caused by the absence of the
essential freedoms.
3. Do you think that free software activists and supporters/followers can use
non-free software?
3. My answer: Yes and no. "Yes" because there everyone has to draw a line on
where compromises can be made, and there are some situations where the person
is not using it for personal purposes, but due to superior orders or using
other's computers. Besides, to develop a free software capable of replacing a
non-free one partially or fully, the non-free software can be used. My answer
is also "no" because there are some people which tend to extend the
compromises further, like using emulators (which many are free software), to
play non-free games. However, using for personal purposes is different than
redistributing or recommending, because on doing the redistribution or
recommendation, you're spreading the moral dilemma caused by the absence of
the essential freedoms.
3. Do you think that we can recommend or install non-functional data that
can't be redistributed non-commercially ("redistributed non-commercially" =
"shared")?
3. My answer: Personally, no because doing so spreads the moral dilemma
caused by the absence of the freedom to redistribute the work at least
non-commercially.
4. Do you think that we can play/watch/view non-functional data that can't be
redistributed non-commercially ("redistributed non-commercially" = "shared")?
4. My answer: Personally, Yes, as far as I can understand, we can even
download it for personal use only. However, using for personal purposes is
different than redistributing or recommending, because on doing the
redistribution or recommendation, you're spreading the moral dilemma caused
by the absence of the freedom to redistribute the work at least
non-commercially.
So, this is the start of this topic! Feel free to comment here and discuss
all the points made and also the questions given and the answers given by me.
I hope that this doesn't get off-topic.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Watcom
[2] http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
[3] http://opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0
[4] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.en.html
[5] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.en
[6] http://www.gnu.org/graphics/heckert_gnu.en.html
