Home
One Planet One Net
Open Source vs. Free Software
Contact Me
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.