5 ms·

Open source is much older. I remember contributing to nethack 30 years ago, and rogue was older than that. Saying ESR defined open source is giving way too muc

by jwatte 9y ago

Open source is much older. I remember contributing to nethack 30 years ago, and rogue was older than that. Saying ESR defined open source is giving way too much credit.

acqq 9y ago
Specifically: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto “The GNU Manifesto was written by Richard Stallman and published in March 1985” It is mentioned in the article.
- cat199 9y ago
  GNU builds on (one interpretation of) an older tradition/culture/practice/whatever of source redistribution which goes back to the dawn of computing..
- romwell 9y ago
  Yes, and also Open Source =/= Free Software (which is also talked about in the article). Free Software predates Open Source.
CrankyBear 9y ago
The article deals with this. And, while esr is mentioned, he doesn't get anything like all the credit.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  But either way: it’s older than 20
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - romwell 9y ago
    The point of the article is that it's not, in the context of Open Source having a certain philosophy behind it. In particular, the article distinguishes Free Software from Open Source, and highlights the difference in emphasis. The claim of the article is that this difference is what led to widespread commercial adoption of Open Source -- but not Free Software. The distinction between the two is what Stallman is very wary of.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      The term is 20 years old but that’s functionally meaningless if the practices are older. Which they are. A lot older. This makes as much sense as saying computers have been around since 1613 when the term first showed up. It’s nonsense.
      - romwell 9y ago
        The point that Stallman, and the article, makes is that both the philosophy and practices of Free Software and Open Source are, in fact, different -- which, arguably, is why Open Source practices have met wide adoption in the industry, to the extent that Free Software philosophy and practices did not. If you disagree, please state how your disagreement sees Stallman's argument (linked elsewhere in the comments) about the difference. Specifically regarding practices: large corporations absolutely did NOT have large-scale software projects in which outsiders could both participate and benefit from via inspection and modification of source code more than 20 years ago. This is what Open Source is really about.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
Title should be "The Term 'Open Source' is 20" but no one would have clicked that link.

by jwatte 9y ago

Open source is much older. I remember contributing to nethack 30 years ago, and rogue was older than that. Saying ESR defined open source is giving way too much credit.

acqq 9y ago

Specifically: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto “The GNU Manifesto was written by Richard Stallman and published in March 1985” It is mentioned in the article.

cat199 9y ago
GNU builds on (one interpretation of) an older tradition/culture/practice/whatever of source redistribution which goes back to the dawn of computing..
romwell 9y ago
Yes, and also Open Source =/= Free Software (which is also talked about in the article). Free Software predates Open Source.

CrankyBear 9y ago

The article deals with this. And, while esr is mentioned, he doesn't get anything like all the credit.

abritinthebay 9y ago
But either way: it’s older than 20
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- romwell 9y ago
  The point of the article is that it's not, in the context of Open Source having a certain philosophy behind it. In particular, the article distinguishes Free Software from Open Source, and highlights the difference in emphasis. The claim of the article is that this difference is what led to widespread commercial adoption of Open Source -- but not Free Software. The distinction between the two is what Stallman is very wary of.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    The term is 20 years old but that’s functionally meaningless if the practices are older. Which they are. A lot older. This makes as much sense as saying computers have been around since 1613 when the term first showed up. It’s nonsense.
    - romwell 9y ago
      The point that Stallman, and the article, makes is that both the philosophy and practices of Free Software and Open Source are, in fact, different -- which, arguably, is why Open Source practices have met wide adoption in the industry, to the extent that Free Software philosophy and practices did not. If you disagree, please state how your disagreement sees Stallman's argument (linked elsewhere in the comments) about the difference. Specifically regarding practices: large corporations absolutely did NOT have large-scale software projects in which outsiders could both participate and benefit from via inspection and modification of source code more than 20 years ago. This is what Open Source is really about.

jasonkostempski 9y ago

Title should be "The Term 'Open Source' is 20" but no one would have clicked that link.