Software Wants to be Free

"give me liberty or give me death!"

What is free software? What is open source software? Here are some links to get you started thinking about it all.

The Free Software Foundation: This is the one that got it all going. Includes a definition of free software, a history of the FSF and the GNU project, and tons of articles by Richard M. Stallman (RMS) et alia. Examples of free software include the Linux kernel and the GNU utilities that form the GNU/Linux operating system.
The Open Source Initiative: Open source software (OSS) is slightly different from free software, as noted in some of the pages linked above. OSS tends to encompass a wider variety of licensing arrangements, but there is still a definition that limits what may be called OSS. OSS has a wider appeal than free software, primarily because its proponents feel that it is more friendly to business. Examples of OSS include the Apache web server, FreeBSD Unix, and the Mozilla web browser (though the Mozilla organization is trying to move to a licensing scheme in which all items are dual-licensed under the GPL and the MPL).
Licensing agreements: Differences between free software and OSS tend to revolve around licensing. Free software is quite often (but not always) licensed under the GNU General Public License. The GPL is the strongest license because it requires all downstream code, i.e., code that is derived from GPL-covered code, to be released under the GPL. This is the so-called "viral" aspect of the license, which is designed to ensure that the codebase cannot be co-opted and stolen from the free software community.

OSS licenses are usually less restrictive, specifically in the area of allowing code to be co-opted for proprietary purposes. Netscape version 6 and later (which are based on Mozilla) and Microsoft's BIND (which is based on BSD BIND) are both examples of OSS code that has been modified and included in proprietary packages. Some OSS licenses are compatible with the GNU GPL, some are not.
Shared Source by Microsoft: It is worth noting in this context that Microsoft has been very insistent lately that the GPL is "dangerous" for business. It has therefore proposed "Shared Source" as a viable alternative to free software and OSS. Shared Source is not a viable alternative. If you understand the benefits of free software and OSS, then Shared Source is a reproduction that sounds tinny, at best. I consider it an offense to my intelligence that Microsoft thinks I might be fooled by the similarities. My guess is that Shared Source is right in line with the Microsoft strategies outlined in the so-called Halloween documents. Although at the time it seemed that executives at Microsoft were stymied by the growth in popularity of GNU/Linux and other free software/OSS products, Shared Source seems to be a clear instance of bait-and-switch. The idea of sharing proprietary source code under heavy restrictions for a significant investment is not new; companies have been doing it for years. It has very little to do with free software or OSS.

Some random links

IBM's thoughts on Microsoft's most recent actions.: "We had that arrogance a few years ago," he said. "Then we nearly went out of business. You learn from that."
Wall Street Journal column on WindowsXP's rape of the consumer.: The upgrade may cost more than you expected, both in dollars and in lost privacy.
Salon article on schools getting bullied by Microsoft and the BSA: "The BSA is a CIA-type organization that infiltrated a cash-strapped large entity that's dependent on public funds. Then they told teachers -- who can't get enough services to kids already -- that they were committing crimes."
ZDNet reports that XP Home is crippled for use in the corporate environment.: "I know some network administrators who have already been burned by this. Microsoft hasn't made a big deal of it, but XP Home is crippled for serious server-based corporate networking."
ZDNet reports on Amazon's switch to Linux for cost reduction.: "In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the e-commerce giant said it was able to cut technology expenses by about 25 percent, from $71 million to $54 million."