I took the liberty of forwarding Nagarjuna's post, "OSS Philosophy Explained" to Michael Tiemann, President of Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org) and here is his reply. For those who may have missed the original post, the same is included at the end of Tiemann's mail for reference purposes.
Regards,
Venky =====
Michael Tiemann wrote:
Thanks for this. My response would be as follows. Feel free to publish in India if you wish.
When I began writing free software in 1987, there were really only two major projects that offered enough freedom for me to even become a contributor: the GNU Project and the project at UC Berkeley to create a fully unencumbered version of Unix using a BSD-style license. To me, the GNU project was preferable because the GPL promised me that I would never be separated from my work, whereas the BSD license made it possible for some other entity to adopt my changes, improve them, and then keep them from me. I saw that as a huge problem, and so I began writing GNU software.
At an industry event earlier this year I sat at a table with Greg Stein (Apache contributor) and Marten Mickos (MySQL CEO). I listened with amusement, and then frustration, as Greg tirelessly argued that it's OK for people to take his work, improve it, and then never give it back, while Marten argued the position that I came to nearly 20 years ago. But the fact that this argument can rage for so long speaks to a deeper truth: different people have different motivations and different value systems. What is better: to declare the Apache project null and void because it permits people to make it into a proprietary product (should they choose to do so), or to recognize that the world is a better place because so many people have the freedom to read, modify, and share Apache source code? I realize that as distributed, Apache software is both free software and open source software, so this is not the precise distinction as between non-free software like pine and free software like emacs. But it also shows that even within software that delivers the functional freedom of free software, different value systems among developers lead to different licensing preferences.
The OSI chose to create a tent larger than the free software tent. We accepted non-free licenses because we wanted to give voice to people writing software and sharing source code who did so for reasons other than moral freedom. Is it wrong to accept works that strive for technical excellence independent of social agendas? As a scientist and an engineer (BS CSE, University of Pennsylvania 1986) I have to say no: the scientific method is, and must be independent from all moral frameworks. Does this make science immoral or amoral? Certainly there are those who apply or ignore science in immoral ways. But science itself is concerned with evidence and falsification, not morals. Open Source allows for software to be independent from freedom, while at the same time offering the kind of freedom that comes from independence.
My personal preference, which has not changed in nearly 20 years, is the GNU General Public License. I like it for personal reasons. I like it for social reasons. I think it's a great license for protecting legitimate business interests. But I don't like it enough to use it as a battering ram against all other possible licensing models. And I think that the Open Source Initiative has helped to foster a far richer software environment by creating a larger tent in which more developers can experiment with and find their own best licensing models and software projects.
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:24 +0530, Venkatesh Hariharan wrote:
Dear Michael,
Here is a thread from the "GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India" that you may find interesting.
FYI, the terms, "swatantra/mukta/ajadi" mean freedom in Indian languages.
Venky
From: "Nagarjuna G." nagarjun@gnowledge.org To: "GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India" linuxers@mm.glug-bom.org Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:30:12 +0530 Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] FW: [OT] - OSS Philosophy Explained
This is a reply to the entire thread so far, so not quoting any of them.
I wish to clarify the difference by example, between OSS and <free> (swatantra/mukta/ajadi) software.
Take 'Pine', an email client, releases source code, you can modify the sources, but can't distribute the changes you make according to pine license. Such a software is open source according to OSI. So, opening is not enough, we need the freedom to distribute the changes we make. Similarly 'scilab', a scientific application, is open source but not a <free> software.
Therefore, all <free> software is open source, but not vice versa. So, free software is a proper subset of open source software.
However, the number of open source applications that are not free software is very very tiny. So, it is also correct to say MOST open source applications are free software. Count the number of applications, not the number of licenses, to get the correct inclusion relation between them. If, OSI excludes those few applications that do not give the freedom to distribute the changes, then all <free> software is open source and vice versa. FSF should not change its stand is very clear, if you see how carefully the <free> software is defined. OSI's definition is left vague. May be business thrives by being vague. Let us ask OSI to modify their license listing policy.
The use of the term 'open source' by the OSI may have created a nice term for the tongue, but at the cost of freedom. But, as I told you MOST open source applications do give you the freedom anyway. Still, it is surprising that OSI advocates seldom talk of the values like freedom. They continue to fetch contracts from govt and companies by arguing that oss is economical. Remember, they said they wanted to eliminate precisely this problem when they chose 'open' in place of 'free'. Did they succeed in clarifying? Certainly not.
Open source adherents talk of total cost of ownership, while <free> software people say freedom is always expensive for we need to protect it constantly. That is why I always end my speach with: "Run for freedom even if it is expensive!" In order to sustain freedom we need to constantly work against the tendencies that try to take away our freedom. Metaphorically, a system must do work to maintain its stability, other wise the system will tend to a state of higher entropy. <Free> software community is an open system, like a living organism, takes feed from the environment and sustains itself by working against non-free software and those who promote them.
I agree with the interpretation that <free> software is a social, cultural movement with wider implications to the future of human society. open source movement, if at all it is, emphasizes technology and a development model. I have no disagreements with their development model.
If only OSI mends their licensing list policy, the differences between <free> and open source community will become thinner, if not disappear.
Nagarjuna