free software: the term isn't the thing

bradley kuhn’s article, “New Ground on Terminology Debate?” today starts with a sort of disclaimer- whether he meant it as one or not, it’s good enough to repeat here:

“(These days, ) I generally try to avoid the well-known terminology debates in our community. But, if you hang around this FLOSS world of ours long enough, you just can’t avoid occasionally getting into them.”
ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/06/23/open-sour...

i’m going to explain why people continue to have this seemingly unimportant debate- i think people find it unimportant because they think it’s actually about the effectiveness of the terminology- but that was an argument that “open source” advocates made, before proponents of free software advocates started taking the bait.

the most common argument against the term “free software” is that the term “free” is “confusing.” this seems to assume that the term, out of context, ought to be able to stand on its own. i don’t believe the most popular alternative: “open source” is any clearer, people are more likely to know what “software” is than “source,” even if they forget the meaning of “free country” (what? i can own the country, at “zero-price?”)

there are other popular, but confusing terms, too. “windows” is not a term that stands on its own, you have to use windows to know it’s “some computer thing,” and people only know that because they’ve been using it for a long time. before computers were called “windows,” windows was just called “the computer” – microsoft, like so many things rich in marketing, has reaped the benefits of our language’s IMPRECISION in this case.

there are lots of terms of various usefulness, that point slightly more or less to what “free software” is than the term itself. some rely on the debatably greater precision in latin tongues, others on grammatical license, but what they all have in common is they aren’t what “free software” has been called for more than 25 years- “free software.” and, in my opinion, if any of them are better terms, none of them are “better enough” to change the name now, based on some not-quite-ironed-out argument that it’s necessary in the first place.

but just in case you insist on the term justifying itself, after an operating system that gives windows real competition (if you’re thinking microsoft is just a pc business, you’re over a decade out of date) has already been written, after free software browsers have taken on and defeated internet explorer, after governments all over the world have switched to using it- and you still need to hear an argument for why the term is effective, fsfe shines the brightest when explaining it: fsfe.org/documents/whyfs.en.html

and bradley kuhn has a theory to explain this phenomenon: “Watching the ‘what constitutes a planet’ debate showed me that FLOSS hackers are no different than most other scientists in this regard. We all take quite a bit of pride in my careful (sometimes pedantic) care in terminology and word choice; I know I do, anyway.”

but are we merely being pedantic, or does the term “open source” create a new problem? i think the answer is NOT in the wording. it’s not a problem with precision- it’s simply a different context. engineers / geeks try to bring others into the context of what they’re doing- it requires translation.

and it’s not that engineers are poorer translators (despite what fans of other terms insist as though they are expert linguists, and not marketing executives at heart,) no perfect translation exists.

just like a french book’s usually better and easier to understand when you learn french, free software’s a better term when you learn about it. calling it “open source” really can’t help people understand anything- just refer to it: what’s open? what’s “source?” “free software” is just as easily explained. if you look at the official definitions of each, the “open source” definition is more elaborate- one might even argue it has to be.

but if you call it “free software,” then people will find the people who call it that- and if you call it “open source,” you’ll find people with a different attitude about the importance of users having freedom- as free software places the important on users’ freedom- not the “freedom” of developers to take it away. that’s what this is really about- talking about the clarity of the term misses the point.

everyone who says “well, this term is so much clearer” really ought to say “this term identifies our group, that’s the real reason we want it used.” funnily enough, richard stallman says almost precisely that. as to the implication that stallman can’t use language precisely- find someone other than noam chomsky (who probably runs into stallman on occasion anyway) that chooses words more cautiously- this is bunk.

“open source” was a term that was invented to hide the meaning of free software from companies, so they would be comfortable embracing it. today, it is a term used by companies to hide the mission of free software from users. the “open source” movement itself is usually trying- and for the most part, without even knowing it- to replace the idea of software freedom with the idea of “software freedom, only when it’s practical.” whatever that means.

and when is freedom essentially practical? when monopolies and tyrants are not running the show? until that day, freedom is uphill- sometimes. it’s not as uphill as some people will tell you, but the thought of standing for something is enough to turn people off. at this point, that’s why “open source” is so popular.

open source says basically: “you can sort of join a movement, and maybe work for better computing, and if you want to, you can stand for something, except when it’s not convenient enough- then forget about it.”

that’s not the message of free software, (although free software isn’t as black and white as people claim, either) it’s a message of more and more things being “good enough.” if microsoft is threatening to sue people for not purchasing licenses to run software THEY WROTE THEMSELVES, that’s “good enough” for some people, but not good enough for free software- because it hurts your freedom to study, use, share, and modify the software.

so like stallman says, by using the term “open source” you are essentially joining a group of people that emphasize (short term) practicality over solutions that are lasting. by joining the “open source” movement, you are being immediately co-opted, and inviting people to co-opt you even further in the future.

you should (preferably) call it “free software” because that was the point of the movement, before it was turned into “something else.” and of course it’s possible that you prefer that “something else” that “open source” often is used to refer to- but that’s not the point, either.

the point of course, is that if you use one term, you are being reached by one philosophy, a philosophy that speaks (in its own language and context- just like any group of people centered around an idea or culture, such as astrophysicists, or farmers, or teenagers) about your rights.

if you call it “open source,” you may never hear about “free software,” but if you do, it will probably be told to you in the language and views of another movement- and in this case, i compare that to a rewriting of history.

i call it “free software” because i decided it’s a more honest term. i don’t call it “open source” because i don’t want people who by their own philosophy care less about your rights to be the first teachers you encounter. i have more faith in the free software movement to represent itself, than by people who often don’t even seem to understand it (or even care what it actually means.)

on those grounds, and not precision of language, “free software” is the best term for “free software” (…or close enough.) i don’t care what you call “open source” – that’s actually something else, and that makes it an even LESS precise term- which was the point, quite deliberately so.

so if you want to hide the ideas behind what you’re doing from yourself, call it “open source.” if you want to understand the ideas that led to the creation of free software, and thus ultimately “open source” as well, call it “free software.” or call it whatever you want, but at least understand how much the context changes, depending on what your words actually refer to- not so much, on the words by themselves.

license: by-sa 3.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0