Alternative terms for free software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that Free/Libre/Open-Source Software be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

Free software is the term introduced by Richard Stallman in 1983 for software which the user can use for any purpose, study the source code of, adapt to their needs, and redistribute - modified or unmodified. The ambiguity of the English word "free" in the term means that, if not explained, "free software" can be misunderstood to mean software that is available without charge. To address this, many people have suggested alternative names.

1 Suggested names
2 History
3 Ownership and attachments
4 Licences
5 See also
6 External links
- 6.1 Wikibooks

[edit] Suggested names

"Open source software", "Software Libre", "Free/Libre/Open-Source Software (FLOSS)", and "Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS)". Although the open source and free software movements share almost identical license criteria and development practices, according to Richard Stallman the respective philosophical values of the two movements are fundamentally different. Some people use "libre" to avoid the ambiguity of the word "free". However, these terms are mostly used within the free software movement and are slowly spreading. Stallman endorses the terms Free/Libre/Open-Source Software ("FLOSS") and Free and Open Source Software ("F/OSS") to refer to "open source" and "free software" respectively, without necessarily choosing between or dividing the two camps, but he asks people to consider supporting the "free software" camp. The most popular of these has been "open-source software". So much so that one goal of the FLOSS and FOSS terms has been to avoid taking a side in the "free software" vs. "open-source software" debate.

[edit] History

"Open-source software" was proposed in 1998 as a replacement label for "free software". Later that year, Open Source Initiative was founded to promote the term as part of "a marketing program for free software".[1]

"Libre software" was first used publicly in 2000, by the European Commission.[2] The word "libre", borrowed from the Spanish and French languages, does not have the freedom/cost ambiguity problem that "free" does.

"FLOSS" was used in 2001 as a project acronym by Rishab Aiyer Ghosh as an acronym for Free/Libre/Open-Source Software. Later that year, the European Commission (EC) used the phrase when they funded a study on the topic.[3] FOSS and F/OSS have since been used by others with the same meaning. The term FOSS was first formally introduced in the document, Use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense. At roughly the time the article introducing "FOSS" was being written, the term F/OSS first appeared on a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to Amiga computer games .[4] Another abbreviation is OSS/FS, although this hasn't seen much usage outside of the documents of David A. Wheeler.

The term "open source software" was picked during a strategy session held in Palo Alto. Those present included Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, John Hall, Sam Ockman, Christine Peterson, and Eric S. Raymond. The session was arranged in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator (as Mozilla). It aimed to ease business adoption of free software by getting rid of the zero-cost ambiguity, and to "avoid the political connotations of 'free software'".[5]

An advocacy group, Open Source Initiative (OSI), was founded that same year to promote the term and the philosophy of its founders. Their business-attracting aim is spelled out in their FAQ: "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software" and on another page "'open source' was coined explicitly to avoid the political connotations of 'free software'".[6]

Unlike "libre software", which aimed to solve an ambiguity problem, "FLOSS" aimed to avoid taking sides in the debate over whether it was better to say "free software" or to say "open-source software". The L for "libre" was included in the hope that it would clarify that the word "free" referred to freedom, not price.

Proponents of the term point out that parts of the FLOSS acronym can be translated into other European languages, with for example the "F" representing free (English) or frei (German), and the "L" representing libre (Spanish or French), livre (Portuguese), or libero (Italian). However, this term is not often used in official, non-English, documents, since the words in these languages for "free as in freedom" do not have the ambiguity problem of English's "free".

FOSS is based on the term FLOSS. One benefit which some people perceive over the term FLOSS is that FOSS avoids collision with the English word "floss".

The free software community in India sometimes use the term "swatantra software", despite English being the lingua franca. This term, meaning freedom, comes from Hindi but is also understandable to speakers of other Indian languages, as they all have deep roots in Sanskrit.

A variation on FOSS, Free/Open Source Software/Code (FOSSC), is a less notable term and initiative that was the "brainchild" of a software programmer based in New Delhi, India.[7]

[edit] Ownership and attachments

None of these terms, or the term "free software" itself, have been trademarked. Bruce Perens of OSI, attempted to register "open source" as a service mark for OSI in the United States of America, but that attempt failed to meet the relevant trademark standards. OSI claims a trademark on "OSI Certified", and applied for trademark registration, but did not complete the paperwork. The United States Patent and Trademark Office. [8] labels it as "abandoned".

While the term "free software" is associated with FSF's definition, and the term "open-source software" is associated with OSI's definition, the other terms have not been claimed by any group in particular. This, however, has not led to confusion since the definitions published by FSF and OSI are practically the same.

All of the terms mentioned here can be used interchangeably, the choice of which to use is mostly political (wanting to support a certain group) or practical (thinking that one term is the clearest).

[edit] Licences

Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative both publish lists of licenses that they find to comply with their definition of free software and open-source software respectively. Apart from these two organisations, the Debian project is seen by some to provide useful advice on whether particular licenses comply with their Debian Free Software Guidelines. Debian doesn't publish a list of approved licenses, so its judgements have to be tracked by checking what software they have allowed into their archives.

The terms Libre software, FLOSS, FOSS, and OSS/FS do not have formal meanings or defacto arbitrators. However, it is rare that a license is announced as being in-compliance by FSF or OSI and not the other - and there is no widely used software which falls into this category, so exact definitions of the terms have not become hot issues.

Most software that falls under the names used in this article is under a small set of licenses. The most popular of these are the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License, the BSD License, the Mozilla Public License, the MIT License, and the Apache License.

There is also a class of software that is covered by the names discussed in this article, but which doesn't have a license: software for which the source code is in the public domain. The use of such source code, and therefore the executable version, is not restricted by copyright and therefore does not need a license to grant the rights to use, study, modify, and redistribute.