Free Software vs. Open Source

[BWF89]

I agree with this article, it should be called "Open Source" rather than "Free Software". The name Free Software just confuses people and Open Source gets the point across better, it's Open Source. Meaning that the source is open...

What do you think?



There are some people who are passionate about the differences between "free software" and "open source." I'm beginning to wonder if the difference matters.

The term "free software" came into use at about the same time that Richard Stallman quit his job at MIT, launched the GNU Project, and began writing the software that would eventually become the core of the free software community: emacs, the GNU "C" compile (gcc), the "C" libraries, and a few others.

Richard wanted to give users "freedom" and he called the GNU Project software "free software." For him, "freedom" was primarily a social and moral goal rather than an economic one. He felt that users had the right to know what the software on their computers was doing and that software that didn't allow this "freedom" was socially and morally wrong. He promoted the idea (and still does) that free software represents the ideal of "free as in freedom." It was a side benefit of the process that the software could be used and distributed at no cost.

When Linus Torvolds created the first versions of the Linux operating system, he used all the GNU tools that had been developed by the GNU Project. As a result, to this day many refer to Linux as GNU/Linux. Linux still uses the GNU "C" compiler and its "C" libraries.

But there were others who believed that the name "free software" worked against the growth and acceptance of Linux and other free software applications. They felt the name was confusing and that explaining it to managers and business people was too difficult. And the ideas behind "free as in freedom" didn't always excite management as much as it did those who were spending countless hours developing it. Another problem was that the word "free" was sometimes equated with "cheap." Many felt that if the software was "free," it must not be worth much.

This group of people, led by hacker and free software developer Eric Raymond and Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute, proposed that the name "open source" be used instead of the term "free software."

Richard Stallman didn't support this new name. According to Richard: "Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when a part of the community decided to stop using the term 'free software' and say 'open source software' instead."

Stallman continued, "Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of 'free' with 'gratis' - a valid goal. Others, however, aimed to set aside the spirit of principle that had motivated the free software movement and the GNU project, and to appeal instead to executives and business users, many of whom hold an ideology that places profit above freedom, above community, above principle. Thus, the rhetoric of 'open source' focuses on the potential to make high-quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas of freedom, community, and principle."

Not everyone agrees with this assessment of the open source community. Recently, one of the leaders of the open source movement wrote to me in an exchange we had on this topic:

The distinction between "open source" and "free software" is not technical; it's the same code and licenses. Nor is it social; it's the same developers. It's strictly one of attitude - are we focused on moralism and changing peoples' thoughts (free software) or on results and changing peoples' behavior (open source)?

Reality has spoken. You get to RMS's (Richard Stallman's) condition of freedom faster by taking the pragmatic course - by shutting up and showing them the code.

In addition, some research recently published by Eric Raymond has shown that "among software developers and in the technology trade press, use of the term 'open source' dominates use of the term 'free software' by 95%-5% or more." (See www.catb.org/~esr/writings/terminology/ for more on this research.)

Is free software dead or dying as a label for software that meets Richard Stallman's goals of "free as in freedom"? Does open source work as a label to represent these goals now? For my part, I'm happy to say "Yes" to both of these questions.

While I know that some will strongly disagree, I think it's time to stop dividing the community using labels. We don't need different names for the same thing. Enough of us believe strongly in Stallman's goal of freedom - and believe that open source is achieving it - to be confident the goals won't be forgotten even if the label is.
Heres the link to the article (http://www.linuxworld.com/story/47613.htm)

[Rancoras]

Free Software, and the confusion that resulted is where the "as in beer" and a"as in speech" tags came from. I'm an American, and I love the word "free".

[az]

What I tell people is that there are only two types of software. Floss and proprietairy software.
Saying open source is not complete, just as saying free is incomplete. If it is free but not open sourced (freeware), that is no good. If it is open sourced, but under a restricted licence, that is not much better...
Floss is "free, libre, open-source software"

[poptones]

This is silly.

It's not free software.

It's Free software.

There's a difference. And calling everything "open source" opens the door to bastardization. I've heard people refer to ANY software that comes with the source as "open source." Many people still call Sun's java "open source" when it is clearly not free. Microsoft also tried this before changing the name to "shared source."

It's either Free, or it isn't. There are guidelines like those from the EFF regarding "what is open source" - but so what? If the person you're talking to doesn't even understand the idea of open source or what is linux, it's not very likely they've even heard of the EFF.

Free. Note the F.

[TravisNewman]

This is silly.

It's not free software.

It's Free software.

There's a difference. And calling everything "open source" opens the door to bastardization. I've heard people refer to ANY software that comes with the source as "open source." Many people still call Sun's java "open source" when it is clearly not free. Microsoft also tried this before changing the name to "shared source."

It's either Free, or it isn't. There are guidelines like those from the EFF regarding "what is open source" - but so what? If the person you're talking to doesn't even understand the idea of open source or what is linux, it's not very likely they've even heard of the EFF.

Free. Note the F.
yes, but free and Free are the same when used in verbal communication, and if you say to someone "this is Free software" they hear "this is free software" and think shareware and how crappy it must be. I agree that Free is better than Open Source but it doesn't get the point across as well.

[machiner]

My impression of free software is the following:

SOmeone codes a piece of software and decides to give it away, allowing no modifications or anything -- you are simply able to use the authors software for no cos, ownership is retained by author, no source code available. Enhancements may be available for a fee.

Open Source (OSS) to me is the following:

Someone codes software and gives it away for free, along with the source code; however, users are allowed to further enhance the software, modify it to their liking or even modify it (as much or as little as they need) in order to sell it ... as long as original &copy& stays in place (just showing the original author).

Someone mills a 2x4 and gives it away -- someone else takes that 2x4 and makes a table out of it and sells it for $27.

I like the idea of OSS (can you people stop mucking with the name, adding you little idioms (FLOSS, free libre -- c'mon -- it's Open Source Software - OSS stop further distancing the community with confusion, ey) better because the original author can die, more to Venus, whatever, and the software is still available and people are always allowed to enhance, adapt, or otherwise modify it.

happy computing

[poptones]

I agree that Free is better than Open Source but it doesn't get the point across as well.

Go tell grandma you use linux and it's better because it's open source. Or because it's FLOSS.

Then tell her it's Free but it doesn't suck because it's Free like freedom, not free like shareware. It's software that was created free and protected by a legal contract that assures no one owns but everyone can use it and modify it. It's like a public park.

You're going to have to explain it no matter what - but Grandma understands freedom... Grandma doesn't even know what "source" means.

[EdCrypt]

Just say Free as in Freedom and thereś no confusion.

[jdodson]

i say free software, if peoples first reaction is that free==crappy then so be it. it is not my job to change minds, only bring information to the table. if people know me they know i dont waste my time using crappy operating systems.

i think that when i say free it means freedom, though sometimes it means as in freedom and as in beer. i think it is up to the person to explain what they mean by free software. i usually follow it up with, "and you can get the code mess with it and give it back to the community if you want, or you can sell it".

english is a poor language for "one word" explanations. i could tell someone that i love them, but what does that really mean? does it mean a crush, mild feelings, i want to have sex with them, we are intimate, we are friends, they are a family member of mine, etc. people get hung up on the "freedom doesnt say enough" argument when referring to free or liberty software, but then fail to realize that the english languages is not really suited for really any kind of one word description of anything. compound that with communication problems(i.e. i say and mean one thing and someone hears me say something i did not intend) and you are in a world of problems from a communication sense. i think it is up to the person sending the message to clearly articulate what they mean by "free." i believe if you hear anyone from the EFF talk about freedom software, they do a good job of explaining the meaning. a person on the street who says, "hey man do you use free software", might not be as eloquent in her/his message.

[EdCrypt]

BTW, in portuguese (i'm from Brazil) we say Software Livre, and "Livre" means only "as in Freedom" ("Liberdade"). In spanish they say "Libre".
I think the Open Source term can be confused with, for example, the M$ "Shared Source", and it's not Free at all.

[az]

I did not invent the term FLOSS. Do a google search.
http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS/report/
http://www.stanford.edu/group/floss-us/


"and the software is still available and people are always allowed to enhance, adapt, or otherwise modify it"

No. Ever heard of a restrictive licence? One that says you may _not_ modify and redistribute the code? (think qt libraries...) This is not to be confused with free (as in libre or liberty - (a yankee should be partial to that word)) software.

Freeware is also a point of confusion. I can download freeware that will recover some deleted files from an ntfs partition. I must however pay the same author for a version that will recover _all_ of my files. This is freeware, but it is not free. Also, what is freeware today may either be commercial or just plain gone in a month. It is all just proprietairy.

Go to gnu.org and read about the differet types of software...

[jdodson]

No. Ever heard of a restrictive licence? One that says you may _not_ modify and redistribute the code? (think qt libraries...) This is not to be confused with free (as in libre or liberty - (a yankee should be partial to that word)) software.


qt has a gpl version, have had it for some time.

[safecracker]

To be honest if ppl are even willing to grasp the concept of OSS I sit down and explain it. Their is no perfect word for it. Use a few more words, tell them it is software licensed under (enter license name here most often GPL) which means the actual code is free to view change (as long as your willing to distribute he changes) and distribute but the ppl who make this software wouldnt mind a donation if you enjoy it.

It doesn't take long to explain the basics but in a microwave society we would rather argue over words with similar meanings then take the 5 minutes to think of a better approch.

Also suggest they read the GPL before using GPL licensed software.

It is both Free and OSS, OSS just happens to be Free. Neither word will explain the complexity of the matter, theres just no magic quick fix.

seriously take a step out of the geek shoes and realize what Free means to average Joe public.

[az]

From the TrollTech page:

I am still unsure. Which license should I use?

If you are unsure of what license you need, then follow this simple rule of thumb: If you're Open Source, Qt is Open Source. If you're commercial, Qt is commercial.
Open Source Edition download files
Qt/X11 Open Source Edition
Qt/Embedded Open Source Edition
Qt/Mac Open Source Edition

Qt for Windows is only available for commercial use.

'snip'

Trolltech's commercial license terms do not allow you to start developing commercial software using the Open Source edition.



Yes, there is a GPL version of QT. It seems, though, that you cannot use it to make commercial applications. From my understanding, they make an excellent product and release some of it under the gpl. There are, however, restrictions.

It makes you think that one day, they will anounce that the next version of kde will be for sale. This is fundamentally different from gnome and the gtk libs. This is another reason why Ubuntu is based on gnome.

[jdodson]

From the TrollTech page:

I am still unsure. Which license should I use?

If you are unsure of what license you need, then follow this simple rule of thumb: If you're Open Source, Qt is Open Source. If you're commercial, Qt is commercial.
Open Source Edition download files
Qt/X11 Open Source Edition
Qt/Embedded Open Source Edition
Qt/Mac Open Source Edition

Qt for Windows is only available for commercial use.

'snip'

Trolltech's commercial license terms do not allow you to start developing commercial software using the Open Source edition.



Yes, there is a GPL version of QT. It seems, though, that you cannot use it to make commercial applications. From my understanding, they make an excellent product and release some of it under the gpl. There are, however, restrictions.

It makes you think that one day, they will anounce that the next version of kde will be for sale. This is fundamentally different from gnome and the gtk libs. This is another reason why Ubuntu is based on gnome.

mysql is licensed in the same manner as QT fyi, as are many commercial apps and libraries. kde is created by a seperate entity from trolltech, KDE is released under the GPL so if the entire KDE staff decided to charge(which is unlikely) a fork can happen(gotta love the GPL) and a KDEFREE branch can begin. xfree86 changed the license, made some people mad, ALA xorg.

[az]

"mysql is licensed in the same manner as QT fyi, as are many commercial apps and libraries"

...and they are not totally free-libre software. That is why postgresql is the default database-server in debian. There is no doubt as to its licensing.

"And because of the liberal license, PostgreSQL can be used, modified, and distributed by everyone free of charge for any purpose, be it private, commercial, or academic."

contrast to:

"All of our products are available under open source licenses, but we also sell commercial licenses for all of the products so they can be adopted in situations where an open source solution is not appropriate." (mysql website, products tab.)


Now, I am a bit millitant about this, but I think you must be. There is no other protection for FLOSS than to demand it and nothing less. To offer a commercial licence for gpl'ed software is nonsense. You cannot have it both ways. You either follow one business model or the other - not both.

What will happen when one day, a core component of kde (or k3b, for example) was to depend on the commercial version of qt3? KDE would not survive as being both free and proprietairy at the same time. One version would always lack something.

To add restrictions to your software starts you down the road to proprietairy software.

[jdodson]

"mysql is licensed in the same manner as QT fyi, as are many commercial apps and libraries"

...and they are not totally free-libre software. That is why postgresql is the default database-server in debian. There is no doubt as to its licensing.


i respectfully disagree, mysql is licensed under the GPL which is a software libre license that mysql libre and QT libre are released under. here are the 4 definitions of GPL freedom or libre:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

**clipped from the site**

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

**end clip**

so, i guess if i hear you right, because you cant take a GPL program like QT and make a commercial app out of the GPL QT then it is not free or libre. i agree that you are removing someones ability to proprieterize something if you use QT libre or mysql libre, however if you want to lock something down(i.e. release it under a NON free as in freedom license or non-libre) then why not pay for the libary or database? it seems to me if someone is going to lock down a program they build they are doing it because they want to sell it and are going to proprieterize it. i wonder how that is libre or free as in freedom(not that selling a GPL program is non-libre, it is just non-gratis)? if you want to sell something you can also release it under the GPL and still sell it.

dual licensing is stupid to be sure, however in the end we are left with some really cool stuff like MySQL and QT and many other programs. Those programs are released under the GPL that will ALWAYS be with us and give us the 4 software freedoms outlined in GPL.

if any person or company wants to release software under a non-free license, i dont care if they have to pay for anything. because in the end, they are continuing the legacy of vendor lockin and non-freedom.

ANY software released under the GPL, in my opinion, is free. Technically the BSD license grants the person more freedoms, however it allows any entity the ability to take the code, fork it and lock it down into a non-free as in freedom or non-libre license.

as yourself: is openoffice(LGPL) stupid because staroffice is non GPL? what about the helix player(GPL) fork from real player?


What will happen when one day, a core component of kde (or k3b, for example) was to depend on the commercial version of qt3? KDE would not survive as being both free and proprietairy at the same time. One version would always lack something.

read up on the goals of KDE. on the goals is to create a free as in the GPL version of free desktop. i read a recent interview with richard stallman and he stated quite clearly it was not the goal of the GNU to innovate, the first goal was to be free. sometimes freedom "according to stallman" means doing without certain features until they are free. if what you propose actually occured i would imagine the KDE developers might create a clone of the said functionality in the GPL version of QT. to be fair to trolltech, i have not heard of any such occurance you mention. that said, it is something that could happen. i also read another article with stallman meeting with the kde developers and he said he considered kde to be free.



To add restrictions to your software starts you down the road to proprietairy software.

not if the said software is released under the GPL.

[EdCrypt]

What do you think about this? (http://mako.yukidoke.org/copyrighteous/freesoftware/20041231-00.html) I agree with him.

[jdodson]

What do you think about this? (http://mako.yukidoke.org/copyrighteous/freesoftware/20041231-00.html) I agree with him.

i think the outcome of open source has yet to be decided. however to be sure, the promise of the legions of code developers to follow any opened project have yet to be fulfilled.

[poptones]

the promise of the legions of code developers to follow any opened project have yet to be fulfilled.

That's because it's a poor model for OSS development. When the software model is based on scarcity and it takes "blessed" individuals to even obtain access to the code. then those legions would mean something, and the absense of them would indicate a failing.

But linux is not the "democratic republic" of the free market. Linux is a true democracy, where anyone can take any code and do with it as they please. Even the core functionality of the kernel could be forked away by anyone who had the tenacity and talent to pull it off.

But in the end most folks just want something that works. and we all have different ways of doing things and different talents. So, for example: you want a download manager? Look around you'll find dozens. Starting with wget and right on up the chain to the minimal managers included with most browsers, there's lots to choose. And if one doesn't work? You can hack one of those you like, you can use different ones depending on appropriateness to the task, or you can spend a few hours making one of your own, that works exactly the way you want it. The basic toolbox is big enough this isn't difficult.

When I used windows I was the king of scripts. I made javascripts for every doggone thing. If I did a task more then twice, I made a script for it. But I often would find myself boondoggled at some little feature, spending HOURS in the MSKB trying to figure out how, for example, to get a simple file selection dialog to pop up and interact from a script. MS likes to talk about how easy stuff like this is, but it's really not (and especially wasn't three or four years ago) - and their documentation is very nearly unsearchable: often their own links come up to 404 pages because they're always moving things around. Even google can't always keep up.

In ubuntu, if you want to know how to do all this, just click on "help>desktop>zenity." It couldn't be much simpler, and the functions are so simple to understand you don't have to be much of a programmer to figure it out. Between zenity and bash you can do just about anything - and google is your knowledge base.

Scarcity is no more. Linux/GPL and even BSD is an absolute democracy bordering on outright anarchy. Everyone is free to take from a pool of dozens of ways of doing things and twist them to your own bidding. Now, it's possible many "mainstream" users would never go there - to them even the thought of making a simple for loop at the command line is too much effort even when the alternative for them is to spend hours clicking, dragging and typing item by item.

Another example: I wanted to post some music to the newsgroups. I hadn't yet setup my desktop for this, and frankly hadn't even considered what it might take to do it in linux. In windows I used - like os many others - Powerpost 2000. It's a closed source but free beer software package that does a pretty good job of posting. You open the app, drag the files there, set a bunch of settings and push the button.

But I don't have that in linux. and even if it was available the code ain't, so it's not going on this box. Just a couple of minutes looking around reveals a great command line uitility that encapsulates all that powerpost functionality - but it doesn't have a slick gui. Someone has made a gui for it, but after looking at it I decided it was easier just to use text files and scripts. It's not too hard to open up a terminal window, enter the command with a -h at the end to remind me of the usage and enter the commands.

But Wait! To get around even typing the path and such for every post, why not make a bunch of defaults for my fave goups and add the "post to newgroups" command to my desktop?

Done. A few hours coding and I have a "post to newsgroup" feature built right into my desktop. There is no clicking and dragging, and no application to launch. Just select the files, right click, "post," choose a profile from the list of those I created, and away it goes.

So how does that help anyone else? Simple - if you want my happy little shell script I'll give it to you. When I get the impetus I'll put it and a bunch of others up on some self-serving website somewhere and then you won't even need to be a FOP to get my script, you'll just have to know how to express your needs to google. And so, my own little solution becomes yet ANOTHER of the bajillion possible solutions (complete with its own, unique, dependancies). I haven't "contributed" to any other projects, I essentially just gave birth to another, adding further to the noise everyone complains about in FLOSS app development.

In this environment, why do we NEED legions of prgrammers chasing every dead end?

We don't.

A personal computer is, ultimately, an extension of one's mind. In the scarcity model you have to adapt your thinking to that of another, because doing it your own way is often more trouble than it's worth. But when you can build an application that isn't even an application, and works exactly the way your own mind conceives it, why bother?

[nocturn]

I do not want to play wordgames, but there is a difference.

Free software has a different meaning then Open Source software. Ok, in practice it often amount to the same, but not always.

Free software should:
- provide the source code
- provide the right to redistribution
- ...

Open Source software should:
- provide the source code.

IMO, you can license OSS software in a way that redistribution is not allowed. It is just unfortunate that free == gratis in the English language. It is not so in other languages (including Dutch).

[az]

It is what it is.

I do not subscribe to OSS, free software, FLOSS one day taking over the world. I do not keep score as to how many more users we have gotten today. I do not care. I use it because it is there and because it is what most suits me. Yes, I would like to see more people using it, since that would one day make it easier for me to go out and buy a printer that is supported right out of the box by my choice of operating system.

Whatever software that is released under the GPL is free, OSS, yes. You always have the ability to fork, right. Forking, however, is only making the best out of a bad situation. Forking is quite rare. That is a good thing, because it buggers up a project. I prefer to use software that clearly (intuitively) takes a position (or business model, actually) that is pro FLOSS. Making two versions of a product is contrary to that. That's all.

Sun makes java. Java is proprietary. Sun makes Openoffice. I am waiting for openoffice to be pulled from under the rug any day. Sun is using open source software for business, but they do not have a business model that can sustain their open efforts.

"what about the helix player(GPL) fork from real player? "
Helix player seems to be an effort in the right direction (going from closed to open as opposed to going from open to closed) I dunno.

[jdodson]

Sun is using open source software for business, but they do not have a business model that can sustain their open efforts.


can't really argue with that:) sun is one of those companies that is becoming more irrelevant on a daily basis.

[BWF89]

can't really argue with that:) sun is one of those companies that is becoming more irrelevant on a daily basis.
Without Sun I wouldn't have a free office suite icon on my desktop (OOo)...

[jdodson]

Without Sun I wouldn't have a free office suite icon on my desktop (OOo)...

right. however there would be alternatives, like abiword and gnumeric or the kde office, however in my opinion open office is superior all of them save gnumeric.

i thank sun for openoffice, however that does not mean they are making wise business choices or relevant in new unix markets.

[poptones]

I personally do not like that overblown bloaty piece of bloatware. I don't like office, I don't like openoffice. The only good thing about openoffice is being able to send people there to download it when they complain about having lost their office installation cd package - and, therefore, the key they need to actually use said cd.

The gnome office tools are pretty nice. So are the kde tools. and both fly better than Ooooooo (and I'm sick of the Oooos). And now we hear rumors about apple coming out with a new office suite.

Competition is a good thing. I think people are waaaay too hung up on being "compatible" with the past. Most of the people I have talked with about getting or replacing their "Office" never even use it for anything but a damned text editor - they in no way need an office package.

As examples on the merits of open source go, OOo is a very poor one indeed. I don;t mean to belittle the volunteered efforts of many contributors to that project, I just think emulating the bloatware that is MS is not a good path to openness.

[Sensebend]

This poll is missing a few options, such as both.

Free software is all about freedom through the license, whereas open source to me seems to be more about provision of the source code and often has a more restrictive license. If I had to choose a term I would probably choose Open source software because it makes it easy to communicate with someone who doesn't understand the difference between free as in freedom and free as in free beer.

[BWF89]

Why do you think OOo is a bad office suite? Aslong as you don't mess around with the settings your spellcheck and everything else will work just fine...

Do you know of any other free (as in free beer and freedom) office suite you can download for Windows?

[jdodson]

Do you know of any other free (as in free beer and freedom) office suite you can download for Windows?

well..... for a word replacement you can use abiword.

however to my knowledge a full replacement windows based free as in speech and beer replacement then the answer is no.

however gnu/linux is a different story.

as to the "bloatware" that is openoffice..... i will admit it is a bit chunky(as in load times, etc). though it is getting much better than it used to(staroffice 5.2 anyone?) and will continue to improve.

i have not used abiword in a few years, i am downloading it now to see if it is noticeably faster.

[jdodson]

Competition is a good thing. I think people are waaaay too hung up on being "compatible" with the past. Most of the people I have talked with about getting or replacing their "Office" never even use it for anything but a damned text editor - they in no way need an office package.

if you are a company that has thousands of word docs, or a person who has thousands of word docs, compatibility with the past is a nice feature. i agree that people do need to move on though. i have not authored a document in the last 3 years that wasnt plain text, sxw or the occasional pdf(shudder).

[poptones]

But it's so incredibly easy to "publish" a pdf in linux, why wold you care about backward compatability? You want to present a professional appearance, send someone your resume, prospectus, or stock presentation in pdf.

If you are a company or someone that has "thousands of word documents" freedom from that ball and chain lies but a batch job and an evening's computing away. Make'em all pdf's and be done with it.

[bonzodog]

I have just found this thread through the new feature at the bottom of the forums -(It's a cool feature -similar threads), and thought I would add my 2c.

So, I prefer to use the term Open Source to describe GPL/GNU/Linux based software. I think the term Free Software IS misleading, and having been an Open Source Convert since 1996, think that it describes the whole concept a lot better. At this point in time, we NEED to have an idea that sounds good even in the corporate world, as corporate take up of FLOSS software is vital to us.

[Virogenesis]

Linux only used the GPL as it allows forks to r merge themselves s.
Personaly I prefer the term Opesnsource as it enables comapnies to embrace the idea of sharing its not so politicaly .

I feel that without the opensource linux could well of amounted to nothing netscape went opensource and by doing that they have saved it now many are using rs the old netscape code (ok it got rewritten but still .)

Free software gets confused with freeware and freeware is u usually mmade e by hobbists and thats lead s to people thinking that linux is not mature and rubblish .
When you hear "FREE" cd what do you think you prolly think its a con that is whatt people think about free software .
Now try getting a CEO to agree to free software its highly unlikely he will but opensource is different he'll atleast listen to someone talking about opensource




JP: Does the difference between the GNU project and Linux relate to the difference between "free software' and "open source'?

RMS: As GNU+Linux came to be used by thousands, and then hundreds of thousands, and then millions, they started to talk to each other: Look at how powerful, reliable, convenient, cheap, and fun this system is. Most people talking about it, though, never mentioned that it was about freedom. They never thought about it that way. And so our work spread to more people than our ideas did.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=106548