4 ms·

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.