<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.76 1.77 -->
<title>Letter to the Editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/drdobbs-letter.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>Letter to the Editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal</h2>

Dear Editor,
I am sure you don't realize how ironic it is to associate me and Tim
O'Reilly with “open source”.
If the House Un-American Activities Committee asked me, “Are you
now or have you ever been a supporter of the open source
movement,” I could proudly and cheerfully say no.  I've been
campaigning since 1984 for <em>free software</em>—free as in
freedom.  (See the GNU Manifesto, Dr. Dobb's Journal, Sept. 1985.)
Free software means, roughly, that you are free to study what it does,
free to change it, free to redistribute it, and free to publish
improved versions.
(See <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a>
for more details.)  You deserve these freedoms; everyone deserves
them.  I wrote the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), the target
of <a href="/philosophy/gpl-american-way.html">Microsoft's greatest
ire</a>, to defend these freedoms for all users, in the spirit of the
free software movement.
Years later, in 1998, another group began operating under the term
“open source”.  They have contributed to the free software
community in practical ways, but they stand for very different views.
They studiously avoid the issues of freedom and principle that we
raise in the free software movement; they cite only short-term
practical benefits as the reasons for what they do.
Their stated definition for the term “open source” is
somewhat broader than free software, and thus includes my work.  But
describing the GNU GPL as an “open source license,” as
Microsoft did, is more than half misleading.  The GNU GPL embodies the
firm philosophy of the free software movement; it doesn't come from
the open source movement.  I am not a supporter of the open source
movement, and never have been.
Tim O'Reilly, by contrast, is a pillar of the open source movement, at
least to hear him tell it.  However, if you look at actions rather
than words, most of the manuals published by O'Reilly Associates do
not qualify as open source, let alone as free.  The handful of free
titles are exceptions.  He could easily excuse himself to
<abbr title="House Un-American Activities Committee">HUAC</abbr>—“Yes, 
I talked about open source, but I didn't really do much of it.”
If O'Reilly moves to selling free-as-in-freedom books in the future, he
could become a true supporter of the free software movement, or at least
the open source movement.  [Later in 2001, O'Reilly Associates published a
couple of additional free books.  We are grateful for this contribution to
the free software community, and we look forward to more of the same.]
With the recent founding of FSF-Europe, and the coming inauguration of
FSF-India, the free software movement is going stronger than ever.
Please don't lump us in with the other movement in our community.
     Richard Stallman
Free Software Foundation

</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="unprintable">

<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>

<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
        replace it with the translation of these two:

        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
        to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">

        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
        our web pages, see <a
        README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
of this article.</p>

<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
     be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.  Please do NOT change or remove this
     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
     document was modified, or published.
     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->

<p>Copyright © 2000, 2007 2007, 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>

<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>

<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->


<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2014/06/04 00:29:37 $
<!-- timestamp end -->