The free software movement ( WSF ) or free / open source software movement ( FOSSM ) or free / free open source software ( FLOSS ) is a social movement [1] with the goal of Obtaining and Guaranteeing some Freedoms for software users derived, namely the freedom To run the software, to study and change the software, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. Although drawing on traditions and philosophies among members of the 1970s, Hacker Culture and Academia, Richard Stallman,founded the movement in 1983 by launching the GNU Project .


The philosophy of the movement is that it should be prevented from cooperating with each other. In practice, this means clustering Rejecting ” proprietary software “, qui imposed Such restrictions, and Promoting free software , [3] with the ultimate goal of Liberating everyone in cyberspace [4] – that is, every computer user. Stallman notes that this action will promote rather than hinder the progression of technology, since it means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided. [5]

Members of the Free Software Definition . Many of them hold that it is immoral to prohibit or prevent people from exercising these freedoms and that these freedoms are required to create a decent society where software users can help each others, and to have control over their computers. [6]

Some free software users and programmers do not believe that proprietary software is strictly immoral, citing an increased profitability in the business models available for proprietary software or technical features and convenience. [7]

“While social change may occur as a result of technological change, advocates of new technologies often have promoted them as instruments of positive social change.” This quote by San Jose State Professor Joel West explains much of the philosophy, or the reason that the free source movement is alive. If it is assumed that social change is not only affected, but in some points of view, directed by the advancement of technology, is it ethical to take these technologies from certain people? If not to make a direct change, this movement is in place to raise awareness about the effects that take place because of the physical things around us. A computer, for instance, allows us to more freedoms than we have without a computer, Or selective privileges? The debate over the morality of both sides to the free software movement. [8]

The Free Software Foundation aussi Believes all software needs free documentation , In Particular Because conscientious programmers shoulds be ble to update manuals to change Reflect That They Made to the software, purpose Deems the freedom to modify significant less for other kinds of written works. [9] Within the free software movement, the FLOSS Manuals Foundation specialized on the goal of providing good Such documentation. Members of the free software movement. [10]


Writing and spreading software

The core work of software development. The free software movement also rejects proprietary software, refusing to install software that does not give them freedoms of free software. According to Stallman, “The only thing in the software field that is unrecognized is a copy of a proprietary program, which is an authoritative copy of the proprietary program. The developer, the perpetrator of this evil, profits from it. ” [11]

Building awareness

Some supporters of the free software movement take up public speaking , or host a stall at software-related conferences to raise awareness of software freedom. This software has been tested and validated for a limited time only. [12]

Ethical equality

Margaret S. Elliot, a researcher in the Institute for Software at the University of California Irvine, not only outlines many benefits that can be obtained from a free software movement, she claims that it is inherently necessary to give every person equal opportunity to utilize the Internet , Assuming that the computer is globally accessible. Since Elliot has been a member of Elliot’s family, If you want to know more about the free software movement, please contact us. The ideas sparked by the GNU associates are an attempt to promote a “cooperative environment” that understands the benefits of having a local community and a global community. [13]


A lot of lobbying work has been done against software patents and expansions of copyright law. Other lobbying focusses directly from government agencies and government-funded projects.

The Venezuelan government has Implemented free software law in January 2006. Decree No. 3,390 mandated all government agencies to migrate to free software over a two-year period. [14]

Congressmen Edgar David Villanueva and Jacques Rodrich Ackerman have been instrumental in introducing free software in Peru , with 1609 on “Free Software in Public Administration”. [15] The incident of the attention of got Microsoft Inc., Peru, whose general manager wrote a letter to Villanueva. His reply was received by the government. [16]

In the United States, there is a need for the government to make the necessary changes. [17]

Subgroups and schisms

FOSS organizations ( FSF , OSI , Debian , Mozilla Foundation , Apache Foundation etc.) and their personalities. For instance there is disagreement about the amount of compromises and pragmatism needed versus the need for strict adherence to values. [18]

Open source

Main article: Open-source software movement

Even though business free software Was not uncommon at the time, in 1998 after-year announcement That Netscape Would liberate Their popular Web browser, a strategy session Was held-to Develop a stronger business case for free software Which would you focus technology Rather than politics. [19] After the Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens founded the Open Source Initiative (OSI), to promote the term ” open source software ” as an alternative term for free software . OSI wanted to address the perceived shortcomings in ambiguous “free software” term, [20] [21] [22] and also some members of OSI didn ‘ T follow the free software movement and focus on non-free software as a social and ethical problem. [23] The peer-to-peer world of Eric Raymond and Linus Torvalds, while Bruce Perens argues that open source was simply meant to popularize free software under a new brand, and even called to come back to the basic ethical principles. [24] While Bruce Perens argues that open source was simply meant to popularize free software under a new brand, and even called to come back to the basic ethical principles. [24] While Bruce Perens argues that open source was simply meant to popularize free software under a new brand, and even called to come back to the basic ethical principles. [24]

Some free software advocates use the term free and open source software (FOSS) as an inclusive compromise, drawing on both philosophies to bring both free software advocates and open source software advocates together to work on projects with more cohesion. Some users believe that a compromise term encompassing both aspects is ideal, to promote both the user’s freedom and the perceived open source development model. OSI-approved licenses and self-avowed open source programs are also compatible with the free software formalisms and vice versa.

Open source software and free software are two separate ideas and values. This ambiguity began in 1998 when people started using the term “open source software” rather than “free software”. People in the community of free software used these different terms as a way to differentiate what they did. The open source movement is a practical question as opposed to an ethical dilemma. In other words, it focuses more on the development. The open source movement is the ultimate solution to the problem.

On the other hand, the free software movements free software as a moral imperative: that should be rejected for selfish and social reasons, and that the software should be developed and taught to cope with the task of making computing technology beneficial to humanoid. It is argued that whatever economics or technical merits free software may have stemming consequences from the free software developers and users enjoy. An example of this is empowerment resulting in the unlikelihood of free software being designed to mistreat or spy on users. At the same time, the benefits purveyed by the open source movement have been challenged both from inside and outside the free software movement. Robert Glass and Benjamin Mako, who is a researcher at the University of North Carolina . [25] [26]

Regarding the meaning and Misunderstandings of the word free , Those Who work dans le free software camp-have searched for less ambiguous terms and analogies like “free beer vs. free speech” in efforts to refine Their definition so there is no confusion concernant free software Profitability. The loan adjective free has gained some traction in the English-speaking free software movement as an unquivocally conveying the state of being in the free software. In fact, free software has always been referred to using the free word and its translations in languages ​​with such words. The free software movement replies that while free is prone to confuse the novice because of its two intuitive meanings at least one of them is the right one, and it is hard to get it wrong once the difference has been learned. It is also a source of information about the open source criteria. [10]In India, where the free software movement has gained a lot of ground and the government has adopted a policy [27] in this regard, the term swatantra [28] and its variants are widely used as a replacement of the term ‘ free. And it’s hard to get it wrong once the difference has been learned. It is also a source of information about the open source criteria. [10] In India, where the free software movement has gained a lot of ground and the government has adopted a policy [27] in this regard, the term swatantra [28] and its variants are widely used as a replacement of the term ‘ free. And it’s hard to get it wrong once the difference has been learned. It is also a source of information about the open source criteria. [10] In India, where the free software movement has gained a lot of ground and the government has adopted a policy [27] in this regard, the term swatantra [28] and its variants are widely used as a replacement of the term ‘ free.

Christopher Kelty, “Theorizing Media and Practice”, eds. The open source movement denies that selectivity and the privatization of software is unethical. This article describes the use of the free software as an alternative to software development. If this is not the case, then this is the only way to make it happen. There is no need to complain if all morality is in effect. [29]

Although the movements have separate values ​​and goals, people in both the open source community and the free software community collaborate when it comes to practical projects. [30] By Richard Glass, Richard Glass, “The Difference Between a Fracture” and “The Facts of a Fracture” Have had “little effect on the field”. [31]

Stallman and Torvalds

The two most prominent people associated with the movement, Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds , may be seen as representatives of the value based versus apolitical philosophies, as well as the GNU versus Linux coding styles . In the GNU / Linux naming controversy the FSF argues for the term GNU / Linux because GNU was a long running project to develop a free operating system, of which they assert the kernel was the last missing piece. [32]

Criticism and controversy

Should principles be compromised?

Eric Raymond is the author of several articles on the subject. Raymond argues that it is possible to increase the value of the software and its influence. [33]

Richard Stallman, on the other hand, sees the current level of compromise as a greater cause for worry. [18] [34] [35]

How will programmers get paid?

Main article: Business models for open-source software

Stallman says that this is where people get the misconception of “free”: there is no wrong in programmers’ requesting payment for a proposed project. Restricting and controlling the violation of freedom. Stallman defends that in some cases, monetary incentive is not necessary for motivation since the pleasure in expressing creativity is a reward in itself. [5] On the other hand, Stallman admits that it is not easy to raise money for FOSS software projects. [36]

“Viral” licensing

The free software movement champions copyleft licensing schema (often pejoratively called ” viral licenses “). In its strongest form, copyleft mandates that any works derived from copyleft-licensed software should also carry a copyleft license, so the license spreads from work to work like a computer virus. These licensing terms can only be enforced through asserting copyrights. [37] Critics of copyleft licensing challenge the idea Restricting Changes That is in line with the free software movement’s emphasis is various “Freedoms,” Especially When alternatives like MIT , BSD , and Apache licenses are more permissive. [38] [39] Proponents enjoy the assurance that copylefted work can not usually be incorporated into non-free software projects. [40] Copyleft-licensed software is a copyleft-licensed copyleft-licensed software. [41] [42]

License proliferation and compatibility

Main article: Comparison of free and open-source software licenses

FOSS license proliferation is a serious concern in the FOSS domain due to Increased complexity of license compatibility considerations qui limits and complicates reuse source code entre FOSS projects. [43] The OSI and the FSF maintain FOSS licenses. [44] There is an agreement between the FOSS licenses and the FOSS. Therefore, the GPvv2 to the GPLv3 in 2007, [45] [46] as the updated license is not compatible with the previous version.

See also

  • History of free software
  • Linux adoption
  • Open-source movement
  • Free-culture movement
  • Free Software Foundation
  • Open Source Initiative
  • Software Freedom Conservancy
  • Free Software Movement of India
  • Free Software Foundation of India
  • Free Software Foundation Europe
  • Free Software Movement Karnataka
  • Free Software Foundation Tamil Nadu
  • Swecha
  • Gift economy


  1. Jump up^ Richard Stallman on the nature of the free software movementin 2008 on emacs-devel mailing list.
  2. Jump up^ “Announcement of the GNU project” .
  3. Jump up^ “Use Free Software” .
  4. Jump up^ “Stallman interviewed by Sean Daly” . Groklaw. 2006-06-23.
  5. ^ Jump up to:b “The GNU Manifesto” .
  6. Jump up^ “Why free software?” .
  7. Jump up^ “Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism” .
  8. Jump up^ “The Effect of Computerization Movements Upon Organizational Adoption of Open Source” (PDF) . San Jose State University.
  9. Jump up^ “Free Software and Free Manuals” .
  10. ^ Jump up to:b Stallman, Richard. “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software” . GNU Operating System . Free Software Foundation . Retrieved 11 February 2013 .
  11. Jump up^ “Transcript of Stallman on Free Software” . FSFE. 2006-03-09.
  12. Jump up^ “Transcript of Stallman speaking at WSIS” . Ciarán O’Riordan.
  13. Jump up^ “Mobilization of software developers” (PDF) . Institute for Software Research.
  14. Jump up^ “Free software liberates Venezuela” . Free Software Magazinen ° 10. 2006-02-08.
  15. Jump up^ “An English translation of the Free Software Bill proposed in Peru” . Dead link ]
  16. Jump up^ “Peruvian Congressman Edgar Villanueva writing to Microsoft about free software.” . Archived from the original on 2007-08-29.
  17. Jump up^ “Open source’s new weapon: The law?” .
  18. ^ Jump up to:b Pragmatism in the History of GNU, Linux and Free / Open Source Software Jun 9, 2015 Christopher Tozzi
  19. Jump up^ “History of the OSI” .
  20. Jump up^ Eric S. Raymond . “Goodbye,” free software “, hello,” open source ” ” . The problem with it is twofold. First, … the term “free” is very ambiguous … Second, the term makes a lot of corporate nervous types.
  21. Jump up^ Kelty, Christpher M. (2008). “The Cultural Significance of Free Software – Two Bits” (PDF) . Duke University press – durham and london. p. 99. Prior to 1998, the Free Software Foundation (and the watchful, micromanaging eye of Stallman), or as a lawyer, or university-research projects, processes, licenses, and ideologies that had A variety of names: sourceware, freeware, shareware, open software, public domain software, and so on. The term Open Source, by contrast, sought to encompass them all in one movement.
  22. Jump up^ Shea, Tom (1983-06-23). “Free software – Free software is a junkyard of software spare parts” . InfoWorld . Retrieved 2016-02-10 . “In contrast to microcomputer hobbyists (also known as” hackers “) many of whom are professional programmers in their work. […] Since everybody has access to source code, many routines have not only been used but dramatically improved by other programmers. “
  23. Jump up^ “Open Source misses the point” .
  24. Jump up^ Bruce Perens (February 17, 1999). “It’s Time to Talk About Free Software Again” . Archived from the original on 16 July 2014 . Retrieved 2 April 2015 .
  25. Jump up^ Glass, Robert L. (2003). Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering . Addison-Wesley . p. 174. ISBN  0-321-11742-5 . ISBN978-0321117427.
  26. Jump up^ Benjamin Mako Hill (19 November 2010). “When Free Software Is Not (Practically) Better” . Archived from the original on January 3, 2015 . Retrieved 3 April 2015 .
  27. Jump up^ Bohannon, Mark. “India adopts a comprehensive open source policy” . . Retrieved 27 August 2015 .
  28. Jump up^ “Swatantra Software In the Press” . . FSF-India . Retrieved 27 August 2015 .
  29. Jump up^ theorizing media and practice . Anthropology of media.
  30. Jump up^ “Why” Free Software “is better than” Open Source ” ” .
  31. Jump up^ Richard Glass (2005), “Standing in Front of the Open Source Steamroller”, in Joseph Feller; Brian Fitzgerald; Scott A. Hissam; Karim R. Lakahani, Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software , MIT Press, p. 89, ISBN  0262062461
  32. Jump up^ “Linux and GNU – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation (FSF)” . . Retrieved 2012-08-13 .
  33. Jump up^ Eric S. Raymond (2006-07-01). “ESR’s” World Domination 201 “, on the need for more compromise by the free software movement” . . Retrieved 2016-02-11 .
  34. Jump up^ “RMS on the progress of the movement and his worry about compromised” .
  35. Jump up^ “Richard Stallman on” World Domination 201 ” ” . I can not agree to that compromise, and my experience teaches me that it will not be temporary. … What our community needs is more spine in rejection of non-free software. It has far too much willingness to compromise. … To “argue” in favor of adding non-free software in GNU / Linux distros is almost superfluous, since that’s what all of them have already done.
  36. Jump up^ “Interview with Richard Stallman” . GNU / LAS s20e10 . Linux action show . 2012-03-11 . Retrieved 2014-08-22 . RMS : I’m not gone to claim that I got a way to make it easier to raise money to pay people who write free software. We all know, that to some extent there are ways to do that, but we all know that they are limited, they are not as broad as we would like.
  37. Jump up^ David McGowan (2005), “Legal Aspects of Free and Open Source Software”, in Joseph Feller; Brian Fitzgerald; Scott A. Hissam; Karim R. Lakahani, Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software , MIT Press, p. 382, ISBN  0-262-06246-1
  38. Jump up^ “Open Source Licensing Guide” . New Media Rights . Retrieved 13 February 2015 .
  39. Jump up^ Newbart, Dave (2001-06-01). “Microsoft CEO takes launch with the Sun-Times” . Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2001-06-15. (Internet archive link)
  40. Jump up^ Kirk St.Amant & Brian Still (2008). “Examining Open Source Software Licensing through the Creative Commons Licensing Model”. Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives . Information Science Reference. pp. 382 of 728. ISBN  1-59140-999-3 .
  41. Jump up^ Byfield, Bruce (2006-08-29). “IT Manager’s Journal: 10 Common Misunderstandings About the GPL” . Retrieved 2008-08-23 .
  42. Jump up^ Poynder, Richard (March 21, 2006). “The Basement Interviews: Freeing the Code” . Retrieved 5 February 2010 .
  43. Jump up^ OSI and License Proliferationon by Martin Michlmayr“Too many different licenses makes it difficult for licensors to choose: it’s difficult to choose a good license for a project. : Some open source licenses do not inter-operate with other open source licenses, making it hard to incorporate code from other projects. Application typically contains code with different licenses and uses applications which each one or several licenses, it’s difficult to see what your obligations are. ” (On August 21st, 2008)
  44. Jump up^ license-list
  45. Jump up^ Mark (2008-05-08). “The Curse of Open Source License Proliferation” . . Retrieved 2015-11-30 . Currently the decision to move from GPL v2 to GPL v3 is being hotly debated by many open source projects. According to Palamida, a provider of IP compliance software, there have been roughly 2489 open source projects that have moved from GPL v2 to later versions.
  46. ^ Jump up to:b McDougall, Paul (2007-07-10). “Linux Creator Calls GPLv3 Authors ‘Hypocrites’ As Open Source Debate Turns Nasty” . Archived from the original on 2008-04-13 . Retrieved 2015-02-12 . […] The Torvalds and free software purists.
  47. Jump up^ “Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?” . . Retrieved 3 June2014 . No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2. However, if the code is released under GPL “version 2 or later,” that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.
  48. Jump up^ Larabel, Michael (January 24, 2013). “FSF Wastes Away Another” High Priority “Project” . Phoronix . Archived from the original on 9 November 2016 . Retrieved 22 August 2013 . Both LibreCAD and FreeCAD both want to use LibreDWG and have patches available for supporting the DWG file format library, but can not integrate them. GPLv2 is a GPLv3 license, and GPLv2 is a GPLv3 license.
  49. Jump up^ Chisnall, David (2009-08-31). “The Failure of the GPL” . . Retrieved 2016-01-24 .
  50. Jump up^ Kerner, Sean Michael (2008-01-08). “Torvalds Still Keen On GPLv2” . . Retrieved 2015-02-12 . “In some ways, Linux was the project that really made the split clear between what the FSF is pushing which is very different from what open source and which Belief in freedom, “Torvalds told Zemlin. So, the GPL Version 3 reflects the FSF’s goals and the GPL Version 2 is where the kernel is. “
  51. Jump up^ corbet (2006-10-01). “Busy busybox busybox” . . Retrieved 2015-11-21 . Since BusyBox can be found in so many embedded systems, it finds itself at the core of the GPLv3 anti-DRM debate. […] The real outcomes, however, are this: BusyBox will be GPLv2 only starting with the next release. It is generally accepted that stripping out the “or any later version” is legally defensible, and that the merging of other GPLv2-only code will force that issue in any case

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *