Whats a good analogy for Open Source/Free Software?

[u-noob-tu]

many times, when im explaining Linux to someone, and i try to describe how Open Source/Free Software works, i cant come up with a good analogy. anybody have a good one?

[haqking]

many times, when im explaining Linux to someone, and i try to describe how Open Source/Free Software works, i cant come up with a good analogy. anybody have a good one?

Open Source and Free Software are 2 different things.

not all free software is open source and not all open source software is free

Free Software analogy = you know when you get something free and dont pay well its like that ;-)

Open Source = you know when you can change something because you have all the code it was made with well its like that

GPL issues aside for simplicity ;-)

[u-noob-tu]

yes, open source and free software are two different things, but explaining the differences to someone whos never even heard of the terms might be too much information at once.

[ajgreeny]

It's the old "free, as in speech, not free, as in beer" again!

[Brian0312]

I've always likened it to music that's still copyrighted vs public domain. The latest pop tune is owned by the record company. The radio stations have to get permission to play the music because someone owns it. You're allowed to sing it and listen to it, but you can't make money off of it without giving someone a cut. On the other hand no one specifically "owns" a song like Happy Birthday, you can screw up the words, change the tune, do whatever you want to that song without reprisal.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it certainly gets people on the right page.

[haqking]

yes, open source and free software are two different things, but explaining the differences to someone whos never even heard of the terms might be too much information at once.

The differences are clear.

Free = means you dont pay

Open source = means the code/design is available for others to see and modify (the source code is open and not closed to view)

Then when you get to the GPL you get the whole Free as in Freedom and not as in Free beer

But you asked about the difference between free software and open source where the differences are fairly clear

[Dngrsone]

In gardening terms, Closed-source (like Microsoft products) is akin to the hybridized seeds that Monsanto sells-- sow the seed, get one use out of it, but the seed from that plant will not germinate.

Open source are ('heirloom') seeds which you can acquire, sow and save seeds from that plant for next season. If you know what you are doing, you can modify the plant through the Mendelian selection (or genetically, if you are really good and have the tools...) and then distribute the resulting seeds. In open source software using the GNU license, you are required to make the source code available.

Freeware are the seeds you gather from the environment-- some really nice plants, but mostly weeds.

[sffvba[e0rt]

The differences are clear.

Free = means you dont pay

Open source = means the code/design is available for others to see and modify (the source code is open and not closed to view)

Then when you get to the GPL you get the whole Free as in Freedom and not as in Free beer

But you asked about the difference between free software and open source where the differences are fairly clear

*snip*

I didn't read everything all the way and commented and then undid what I had done :p


404

[haqking]

*snip*

I didn't read everything all the way and commented and then undid what I had done :p


404

ha you were gonna pick me up on the free = means dont pay thing werent you...LOL

But then saw i clarified later ;-)

[gsmanners]

Linux is like having a map on your wall.

Windows/Mac is like having to hire a cartographer to go where you want.

[sffvba[e0rt]

ha you were gonna pick me up on the free = means dont pay thing werent you...LOL

But then saw i clarified later ;-)

I don't like this one... he reads minds...


404

[rtimai]

...On the other hand no one specifically "owns" a song like Happy Birthday, you can screw up the words, change the tune, do whatever you want to that song without reprisal...

The "Happy Birthday" song is not a good example, I'm sorry to say. Believe it or not, it IS copyrighted. I looked it up when an event I witnessed used another celebratory song for that reason. Which made me look it up...

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

[blueturtl]

Open Source / Free Software development is like capitalism without money: everyone strives to make the best product for themselves. When a product ends up being liked by many, it gains more momentum as a result because every user pools in, if not with actual code, at least with ideas and suggestions. The important thing in this is that contrary to commercial software -- where money is often playing with people's motivations -- you end up with software that does what people want/need without any artificial limitations.

I quote myself from an earlier thread:

Linux will do anything you wish as long as you can make it happen, Windows will do some things really well and others never if you paid a million dollars and slaved away for all eternity.

[Jack Brown]

opensource = old time neigborliness, people help each other out, build things together according to one another's need. people improve stuff because they encounter bugs. and they squash bugs to fix their own problems as well as the problems of others. So one fix impacts many. One completed core product is useful to many and is customizable enough to be personal. Smaller add-on products are just as useful.



closed source / for-pay = people expect something back for their product, once you pay them there's little chance the work is improved, unless you pay them again. And then the same product is sold to others at the same price (often a high one), even after all the effort that went into them has been paid off. Sometimes a lot of features are added on that are not really used by many, but they are there simply so that the product would sell, and be able to sell at a higher price.



Analogy 2
opensource - like gathering / buying food, and you know the ingredients. You can put the food together to make good meals. People can also prepare the food for you, and are very glad to do so, because they are preparing food for themselves too. And you are glad to give something back yourself.

closed source - like buying highly processed food that does not indicate ingredients on the outside

[Macfunky]

The way that I explain open source to people is by comparing it to science. I find it's the easiest way to explain it. Scientists develop ideas and do research. They then publish this work to the scientific community which look at it, put it under scrutiny, etc.

It's an open, collaborative world and if science didn't work like that it would stagnate. Fortunately it does and ideas and work get passed on where other scientists can further develop these ideas to where they couldn't if the previous persons work hadn't have been done. It's a big collaboration which benefits everyone and helps us all move forward in a way we couldn't alone. All it's work is available for anyone to look up. I see them as very similar.

[samstreet101]

Open Source and Free Software are 2 different things.

not all free software is open source and not all open source software is free

Free Software analogy = you know when you get something free and dont pay well its like that ;-)

Open Source = you know when you can change something because you have all the code it was made with well its like that

GPL issues aside for simplicity ;-)

It sounds like you're aware but just for clarity (or confusion depending on your point of view) that's actually not the definition of free software according to the free software foundation and Richard Stallman. They say pretty emphatically that they are not concerned whether the software costs money but they mean it in the 'free as in freedom' sense which means it is actually almost the same as open source.

The term 'open source' was actually coined not because it's especially different from free software but more as a marketing device. Free software had this image of being hippy-ish and as such businesses and enterprise stayed away from it. So people began using the term open source instead. Eric S. Raymond and others mention this in the film 'Revolution OS.'

[haqking]

It sounds like you're aware but just for clarity (or confusion depending on your point of view) that's actually not the definition of free software according to the free software foundation and Richard Stallman. They say pretty emphatically that they are not concerned whether the software costs money but they mean it in the 'free as in freedom' sense which means it is actually almost the same as open source.

The term 'open source' was actually coined not because it's especially different from free software but more as a marketing device. Free software had this image of being hippy-ish and as such businesses and enterprise stayed away from it. So people began using the term open source instead. Eric S. Raymond and others mention this in the film 'Revolution OS.'

see my post http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11422659&postcount=6

[samstreet101]

see my post http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11422659&postcount=6

I'd agree that most people think of free as in beer when they hear the term 'Free Software' but if we're being particular about definitions (and it might just be me that is :p ) then Free software means free as in freedom seeing as it was a term coined and defined by the free software foundation

[haqking]

I'd agree that most people think of free as in beer when they hear the term 'Free Software' but if we're being particular about definitions (and it might just be me that is :p ) then Free software means free as in freedom seeing as it was a term coined and defined by the free software foundation

That is what i said in post #6 which i referred you to.

[samstreet101]

That is what i said in post #6 which i referred you to.

Sorry it sounded like when you said free=you don't pay, you were referring to free software and not just the word 'free'

Confusion cleared up!

[haqking]

Sorry it sounded like when you said free=you don't pay, you were referring to free software and not just the word 'free'

Confusion cleared up!

NO worries, i have highlighted below for clarity ;-)



The differences are clear.

Free = means you dont pay

Open source = means the code/design is available for others to see and modify (the source code is open and not closed to view)

Then when you get to the GPL you get the whole Free as in Freedom and not as in Free beer

But you asked about the difference between free software and open source where the differences are fairly clear

[tulipán]

In gardening terms, Closed-source (like Microsoft products) is akin to the hybridized seeds that Monsanto sells-- sow the seed, get one use out of it, but the seed from that plant will not germinate.

Open source are ('heirloom') seeds which you can acquire, sow and save seeds from that plant for next season. If you know what you are doing, you can modify the plant through the Mendelian selection (or genetically, if you are really good and have the tools...) and then distribute the resulting seeds. In open source software using the GNU license, you are required to make the source code available.

Freeware are the seeds you gather from the environment-- some really nice plants, but mostly weeds.

that is a great one!

[Simian Man]

If people don't understand a simple definition of open source, then they probably wouldn't care about it at all even if they did understand it. The concept of open source is only useful to a very small percentage of people, while the concept of free software (as in beer) is useful to nearly everyone. Just tell them it doesn't cost anything and leave it at that.

[t0p]

If people don't understand a simple definition of open source, then they probably wouldn't care about it at all even if they did understand it. The concept of open source is only useful to a very small percentage of people, while the concept of free software (as in beer) is useful to nearly everyone. Just tell them it doesn't cost anything and leave it at that.

This. Except it is possible someone may encounter a Free application that you have to pay for. Speaking for myself, I don't think I have encountered Free software (capital "F") that wasn't free (lower-case "f") in the 10 years or so I've been using Linux. But it is a technical possibility.

I think it's a mistake to concentrate on telling people that Free software doesn't cost anything. Tell them that in the term "Free software", the word "Free" is used for its freedom/liberty meaning - "free speech, not free beer", etc. If they know any french, tell them that in this context, "Free" means libre, not gratis. In fact, I believe most languages have different terms for the different contexts. English is stooopid...

As for the term "open source" - that doesn't really mean anything to most computer users. So if you're asked to define the term, just tell them "open source software" is the same as "Free software". That's pretty much true anyway.

[gsmanners]

Let's try a food analogy:

Linux is like a subway sandwich shop. You spell out what you want.

Windows/Mac is like a normal burger joint. You get what's sitting under a heat lamp.

[Mikeb85]

Free software =/ not having to pay. Free software/open source (same thing) just mean that when you have a piece of software in your possession, you can do what you want with it. You can modify it, duplicate it, etc..., as long as you keep that 'freedom' intact and allow the next person to do the same.

Free software has absolutely nothing to do with the cost, but everything to do with freedom. It's not about being cheap and refusing to pay for stuff. And for the record, I've paid for 'free' software before to support a company (I bought a boxed copy of SUSE linux a long, long time ago).

[Lars Noodén]

As a development model it is "bring a brick, get a house"