"Stallman makes a clear distinction between the free software and open source movements. The free software movement is based on values of freedom and social solidarity, he said, while the open source movement is thinking about practical benefits only, and forgets what’s most important..."

Brian Behlendorf, 32, is a leader of the open source movement and a high-tech Renaissance man. He was a key developer of the Apache Web server and is now the CTO at CollabNet, which provides hosted solutions for Web-based software development to Intel, Sun, Motorola and others. He also is a lover of all-night raves, techno music and art.

RMS: «...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.

The spirit of the open source movement operates under the assumption that software’s most valued resource, its code, should be freely available to everyone. Despite the obvious advantages of making code readily available to anyone around the world, there are some cultural differences that complicate the open source movement.

This week I offer a change of pace in my blog by presenting some foundational people and ideas that the open source movement is based on. I include plenty of links to enhance your understanding as well as provide some scavenger hunt questions in hopes that you will explore the beginnings of open source.

Firefox, the browser that dared to challenge the supremacy of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, has just reached 400m downloads - and deservedly so. It now claims a market share of nearly 20% in the UK and 30% in Germany. Firefox, part of the admirable Mozilla Foundation, is based on open source, created and improved on by volunteers all over the world.

"...For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution.

“Open Source” advocate: «...I associate much more with the "Open Source" (also as Richard defines it) camp, and am open to the existence and use of proprietary software...» --

Three years ago, Tom Foremski wrote an interesting piece called “Adapt or die--the choice facing the open source movement“, which began:

Can Larry Ellison be stopped? By which I mean could Oracle shut down the fledgling open-source software movement through a series of acquisitions??