Editing Free software movement (section)

== Subgroups and schisms ==
Since its inception, there is an ongoing contention between the many [[FLOSS]] organizations ([[Free Software Foundation|FSF]], [[Open Source Initiative|OSI]], [[Debian]], [[Mozilla Foundation]], [[Apache Foundation]], etc.) within the free software movement, with the main conflicts centered around the organization's needs for compromise and pragmatism rather than adhering to founding values and philosophies.<ref name="pragmatism">{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20160217000741/http://thevarguy.com/open-source-application-software-companies/060915/pragmatism-history-gnu-linux-and-freeopen-source-software Pragmatism in the History of GNU, Linux and Free/Open Source Software]}} Jun 9, 2015 Christopher Tozzi</ref>

=== Open source ===
{{main|Open-source-software movement}}

The [[Open Source Initiative]] (OSI) was founded in February 1998 by [[Eric Raymond]] and [[Bruce Perens]] to promote the term "[[open-source software]]" as an [[alternative term for free software]]. The OSI aimed to address the perceived shortcomings and ambiguity of the term "free software", as well as shifting the focus of free software from a social and ethical issue to instead emphasize open source as a superior model for software development.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html |title=Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source" |quote=The problem with it is twofold. First, ... the term "free" is very ambiguous ... Second, the term makes a lot of corporate types nervous. |author=Eric S. Raymond |author-link=Eric S. Raymond |access-date=2016-03-22 |archive-date=2020-01-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200102094841/http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://twobits.net/pub/Kelty-TwoBits.pdf |title=The Cultural Significance of free Software – Two Bits |first=Christpher M. |last=Kelty |publisher=[[Duke University]] Press |location= Durham and London |year=2008 |page=99 |quote=Prior to 1998, Free Software referred either to the Free Software Foundation (and the watchful, micromanaging eye of Stallman) or to one of thousands of different commercial, avocational, 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. |access-date=2016-03-22 |archive-date=2008-08-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080827175442/http://twobits.net/pub/Kelty-TwoBits.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="infoworld1983">{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yy8EAAAAMBAJ&q=us%20government%20public%20domain%20software&pg=PA31 |work=[[InfoWorld]] |date=1983-06-23|title=Free software – Free software is a junkyard of software spare parts |quote=In contrast to commercial software is a large and growing body of free software that exists in the public domain. Public-domain software is written by microcomputer hobbyists (also known as 'hackers') many of whom are professional programmers in their work life. [...] Since everybody has access to source code, many routines have not only been used but dramatically improved by other programmers. |first=Tom |last=Shea |access-date=2016-02-10}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|publisher=GNU
|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
|title=Open Source misses the point
|access-date=2014-04-18
|archive-date=2011-08-04
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110804231811/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
|url-status=live
}}</ref> The latter became the view of Eric Raymond and [[Linus Torvalds]], while Bruce Perens argued that open source was meant to popularize free software under a new brand and called for a return to basic ethical principles.<ref>{{cite web
|author1=Bruce Perens
|author-link1=Bruce Perens
|title=It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again
|url=https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html
|date=17 February 1999
|access-date=2 April 2015
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140716055445/https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html
|archive-date=16 July 2014}}</ref>

Some free software advocates use the terms "[[free and open-source software|Free and Open-Source Software]]" (FOSS) or "Free/Libre and Open-Source Software" (FLOSS) as a form of inclusive compromise, which brings free and open-source software advocates together to work on projects cohesively. Some users believe this is an ideal solution in order to promote both the user's freedom with the software and the pragmatic efficiency of an open-source development model. This view is reinforced by fact that majority of [[List of OSI approved software licences|OSI-approved licenses]] and self-avowed open-source programs are also compatible with the free software formalisms and vice versa.<ref name="OSS misses the point">{{cite web|last=Stallman|first=Richard|title=Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html|work=GNU Operating System|publisher=Free Software Foundation|access-date=11 February 2013|archive-date=4 August 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110804231811/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

While free and open source software are often linked together, they offer two separate ideas and values. Richard Stallman has referred to open source as "''a non-movement''", as it "''does not campaign for anything''".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://siliconangle.com/blog/2016/04/28/gnu-founder-stallman-open-source-is-not-free-software/|title=GNU founder Stallman: 'Open source is not free software' |last=Gillin|first=Paul|date=2016-04-28|work=SiliconANGLE|access-date=2017-10-17|language=en-US|archive-date=2017-10-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171017145802/https://siliconangle.com/blog/2016/04/28/gnu-founder-stallman-open-source-is-not-free-software/|url-status=live}}</ref>

"Open source" addresses software being open as a practical question  rather than an ethical dilemma – non-free software is not the best solution but nonetheless a solution. The free software movement views free software as a moral imperative: that proprietary software should be rejected, and that only free software should be developed and taught in order to make computing technology beneficial to the general public.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stallman |first=Richard |title=Why 'Open Source' Misses the Point of Free Software {{!}} June 2009 {{!}} Communications of the ACM |url=https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/6/28491-why-open-source-misses-the-point-of-free-software |access-date=2017-10-17 |website=cacm.acm.org}}</ref>

Although the movements have differing values and goals, collaborations between the Free Software Movement and Open Source Initiative have taken place when it comes to practical projects.<ref>{{cite web
|publisher=GNU
|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
|title=Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source"
|access-date=2014-04-18
|archive-date=2021-03-27
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210327080246/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
|url-status=live
}}</ref> By 2005, Richard Glass considered the differences to be a "serious fracture" but "vitally important to those on both sides of the fracture" and "of little importance to anyone else studying the movement from a software engineering perspective" since they have had "little effect on the field".<ref>{{Citation
 | author = Richard Glass
 | chapter = Standing in Front of the Open Source Steamroller
 | title = Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software
 |editor1=Joseph Feller |editor2=Brian Fitzgerald |editor3=Scott A. Hissam |editor4=Karim R. Lakahani | publisher = MIT Press
 | year = 2005
 | isbn = 0262062461
 | page = 89}}</ref>