When discussing free software and open source, it’s common to encounter confusion about their meanings. While the terms are often used interchangeably, they actually represent fundamentally different concepts, both in philosophy and practical application. Understanding these differences is crucial to grasp the technical, social, and political implications behind each. Below, we’ll explore what free software is, what open source is, and how they differ, using historical and current examples to clarify these terms.
What is free software?
Free software is a concept championed by Richard Stallman since the mid-1980s, when he founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The core idea of free software is based on four essential freedoms that users must have:
- Freedom to run the program for any purpose.
- Freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to their needs (which requires access to the source code).
- Freedom to redistribute copies to help others.
- Freedom to improve the program and release those improvements to the community.
In this sense, the term “free” refers more to user freedom than to the cost of the software. In fact, free software can be sold, as long as these essential freedoms are respected. This approach not only encourages collaboration among users but also emphasizes an ethical component: software should guarantee users’ rights and transparency in its functionality.
A historical example is GNU/Linux, an operating system that, under the principles of free software, has been collaboratively developed for decades. Another significant example is LibreOffice, a free office suite that allows users to modify, distribute, and use the software without restrictions.
What is open source?
The concept of open source, on the other hand, emerged in the 1990s as an alternative to the term “free software.” While the philosophy behind free software focuses on ethics and user freedoms, open source adopts a more pragmatic view. The focus here is not necessarily on protecting user freedoms but on promoting a transparent and collaborative development model that has proven highly effective in creating high-quality software.
The Open Source Initiative (OSI), founded in 1998, has been pivotal in promoting this approach. Although many open source projects are also free software, OSI emphasizes the technical benefits of access to source code: better development practices, faster bug detection, and collaborative improvements. In this context, commercial interests are often more accepted, as open source is seen as a competitive advantage for development and innovation.
An iconic example of open source is Android, Google’s operating system based on the Linux kernel. While much of Android’s code is accessible, Google retains control over critical components, illustrating one key difference: full freedom to modify and distribute is not always a priority in open source projects. Another current example is Kubernetes, a container orchestration platform that has become an industry standard in enterprise software.
Philosophy vs. pragmatism
One of the main differences between free software and open source lies in the philosophy behind each term. While free software emphasizes an ethical commitment to user freedom, open source is more concerned with the practical advantages of code accessibility. Free software prioritizes user rights, promoting an ideal of sharing and collaborating for the common good, while open source prioritizes efficiency and innovation, with less focus on ethical issues.
For instance, companies adopting open source models may do so because they see the value in faster, collaborative development, but not necessarily because they share the ethical philosophy of free software. In fact, many free software advocates view open source as a “watered-down” version of their movement, compromising its fundamental principles for commercial interests.
Examples of the difference in action
To better understand how these differences play out in practice, let’s look at some specific examples:
- Mozilla Firefox (open source): The Firefox web browser is an example of open source software that has thrived thanks to its collaborative development model. Although it is an open project, Mozilla’s community has created a high-quality product that competes with proprietary browsers. However, Mozilla allows extensions and features that don’t necessarily align with free software principles.
- GNU Emacs (free software): This programmable text editor, part of the GNU project, is a symbol of free software. It allows users to completely modify its functionality, distribute it, and share their improvements, following the principles that Richard Stallman has promoted from the start.
Today, it’s common for software to combine both approaches. For example, Linux as a kernel is both free software and open source, making it a prime example of synergy between the two movements. But when open source allows restrictions or does not promote free distribution, it diverges from the principles of free software.
The importance of understanding and promoting both approaches
Free software and open source are two terms that, although frequently confused, present clear differences both in their philosophical principles and practical application. Free software defends user freedom as an essential value and has profound ethical implications, while open source focuses on the technical and economic benefits of collaborative development.
It’s important to understand this distinction because both approaches play a key role in the evolution of software and technology. Promoting both free software and open source is crucial, as they represent different but complementary paths towards a world where technology can be more accessible, inclusive, and transparent. The key is to recognize what each one is and how their principles affect not only the software we use but also the values we wish to promote as a society regarding intellectual property, privacy, and collaboration.
Both movements continue to contribute to a more open and participatory digital transformation, and knowing the difference allows us to make informed decisions about the type of technology we want to support for a better future.
