Open Source Vs. Free Software

Within the realm of Linux and Unix, there have been many debates: vi vs. emacs, one distribution vs. another, and Open Source vs. Free Software. My personal opinion is that neither is better than the other. Open source has its place, and so does Free Software. Others do not share my live-and-let-live mentality. There are constant debates as to which is better than the other, and I feel that the debates are pointless. The different licenses that the two types of software work under are ideal for two different kinds of developers. With the license from the Open Source Initiative, developers who use any part of a program under that license, must publish the source code for the entire program, including any proprietary code. That scenario is less than ideal for most major software developers. With the licenses offered from the Free Software Foundation, the company that produces the code, need not make the source available to the general public, but it still has to be free.

So, in reality, the constant sparring between the two factions is really not accomplishing anything, there are still two different licenses. What most people in this debate fail to realize is that major developers do not want to license software as open source. What open source is good for, is for projects that are just starting up, so that the community can help to develop projects that the community feels are worth pursuing. I feel that open source has great merit for providing free solutions to expensive software packages. On the other hand, a lot of really fantastic software would not be available to many people if it weren't for the Free Software Foundation, they allow the developers to release their software, but still keep their source to themselves.