The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source camp from
the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of “free software”
made some people uneasy. That's true: raising ethical issues such as freedom,
talking about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to
think about things they might prefer to ignore, such as whether their conduct
is ethical. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may simply close
their minds to it. It does not follow that we ought to stop talking about
these issues.
That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do. They figured
that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the
immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to
“sell” the software more effectively to certain users, especially
business.
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.
