It is a common notion that there is a lot of ambiguity and disagreementaround the termOpen Source. While that has been true in the past, Ibelieve that there is much more consensus now because the term has beenrefined and the taxonomy of software has been improved. Certainly thereare still arguments, but I believe for the most part, there is adetente.

Much of the past ambiguity surrounded the philosophical disagreementsbetween those who felt software should be free as in liberty, not onlyfree as in beer. This view essentially holds that derivative works ofFree Software must themselves be open andFree.RichardStallman(who does not want to be associated with the termOpen Source)embodies this philosophy, as does theGPLlicense.

The opposition felt that we should not place such restrictions onsoftware to consider itOpen Source.

While this disagreement may have been heated at times, in many ways thecore argument around the termOpen Source has been resolved bydifferentiating betweenFree Software and Open Source. There are nowsites dedicated to theFree SoftwareDefinitionand theOpen SourceDefinitionto promote these terms.

While there are certainly disagreements between the two camps on howsoftware should be licensed, in many ways the camps are compatible. Whenlooking specifically at the licenses, it is helpful to think ofOpenSource as a superset ofFree Software.Free Software is necessarilyOpen Source, but anOpen Source is not necessarilyFree Softwarebecause aFree Software license is in general as restrictive or morerestrictive than anOpen Source license.

Likewise aSource Available is not necessarilyOpen Source, butOpen Source is necessarilySource Available.

In my hope to be aneologist,I will push the termSource Available (I like it better than myearlier termCode Available) and hope it catches on. If someone coinedit before me, at least I hope the claim to fame of making it popular. ;)

I have written on the topic of Open Source software before if you areinterested.

• Developer’s Guide To Copyright Law
• Developer’s Guide To Open Source Licensing
• Who owns the copyright for open source software
• Public Does Not Equal Open Source

Comments

Leave response

Remember me

4 responses

1. 

   Community Blogs• July 26th, 2006

   I have more Beach Week Chronicles to get online, but I needed to take a sidebar and add a bit of info

2. 

   JC John SESE Cuneta• September 18th, 2007

   Personally, I'd prefer to work on Free/Libre Software as you will automatically be an Open-Source, especially if you're using GPL, which is both camps (camps, not the devs) #1 choice for licensing.
   And as for the term, I prefer the new modern term "FLOSS" for "Free/Libre (and) Open-Source Software", which is more interesting especially when you say "get a FLOSS" (lolz ambigousity again).
   :)
   

3. 

   Olivier Biot• January 18th, 2009

   Very interesting presentation of free, open source and a 3rd category nicely named "source available". I'd like to add "freeware" as another term that's often used in this confusing mix. And "public domain" which by the way does not exist all over the World.
   Reasons for mixing these terms can also emanate from cultural aspects as there's no 1:1 mapping of "free" in all languages and cultures. Besides, is the "free" in "free software" to be compared to "free speech" or "free press" or "free to use as you please" or even "free mind"?
   Is what is meant with "free software" really "free"? That's the subject of an intense, almost religious debate that eventually turns out to be tightly linked to the propagation of the terms and conditions (the license) of a free/open source software product to derivative works and to other works that interact with this software. In this context the term "copyleft" is quintessential: it describes your rights and duties with respect to how a software developer can (re)use the software and how other software may interact with the software. One source of debate originates in how "copyleft" and "freedom" can be seen as expressions of the same idea (or not). Some see "copyleft" as a charter that protects the software, other see "copyleft" as an obstacle for freely using it.
   The acronym "FLOSS", which stands for free, libre and open source software, tries to catch parts of the aforementioned categories but does not solve or address the differences between them. Personally I'm not a fan of this term as it brings more confusion by grouping movements that share common ideas but are in fact too different to correctly describe as a whole.
   Maybe we should stop looking at the source code only and start looking at the fascinating "FLOSS phenomenon" through different goggles...

4. 

   Tim Murphy• July 9th, 2015

   IPhil, are you aware of a "shared source" or "source available" license template? My google searching so far has only resulted in proprietary licenses. The irony :-)