[CoLoCo] RMS interview.

[David L. Willson]

> ...I don't really see how open source and free are
> not synonymous.

It's the four freedoms:
        0. Use
        1. Study
        2. Redistribute
        3. Modify

"Open Source" software only guarantees freedom 1.  Not any of the other
three.  And not really even 1.  Read on...

For example: Microsoft could make the source code of Windows public, but
not grant any use rights.  In effect, that is the case now, with leaked
copies, except that now, leaked copies actually hamper our ability to
create compatible products, because of legal issues that cause many
projects to actually ban developers that have seen Windows sources from
the parts of the project where that knowledge would be most useful.
(see WINE) Microsoft's "open sourcing" would give us freedom 1, but no
more.  We couldn't legally modify the source, even if we found a bug in
it.  We couldn't give un-compiled copies of the source to others.  We
still couldn't use the product (Windows, in this example.) in whatever
way we see fit.  In fact, Microsoft could actually publicize the source
~and~ make it illegal to develop functionally identical or even
binary-compatible products using the knowledge gained by the study
thereof.  So...  Open Source is part of Free, but it's not the whole
ball of wax.  Red Hat has shown a great deal of commitment to software
that is Free as in Freedom, as has Canonical, as has Mandriva, as have
non-commercial groups beyond counting.