7 ms·
I think OP meant in the spiritual sense, free software is the original "open-source". A better one, I'd argue, but that's a different discussion.
by AsyncAwait 8y ago
I think OP meant in the spiritual sense, free software is the original "open-source". A better one, I'd argue, but that's a different discussion.
- sangnoir 8y agoI was addressing OP's suggestion that RMS is the authority on "Open Source" (which was the question further up the thread). He'd rather have you use/contribute (to) Free software instead.
- AsyncAwait 8y agoYes, I understood that, I assume the OP meant that he is an authority on "open-source" in that "free software" was the original "open-source" and thus "open-source" has RMS a lot to thank for. Otherwise I agree.
- BFatts 8y agoIt might be the original "open source" but it ISN'T open source, per the definition. Open Source was coined for software LONG AFTER the FSF had declared what free software meant. Going back and saying "Well, RMS might have MEANT open source, so it's actually the original open source" is very subjective and not historically accurate.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago> Open Source was coined for software LONG AFTER the FSF had declared what free software meant I know, you COMPLETELY misunderstood my comment. > Going back and saying "Well, RMS might have MEANT open source, so it's actually the original open source" I don't think he meant open-source and I am not saying he did, as free software defines greater freedoms. I am not a big fan of open-source myself, much prefer free software. What I am actually trying to say, is that "free-software" was the original way to share code and work on it collaboratively for the commons, ie the thing open-source got inspired by. What I am saying, is that in certain sense, you could say that Ken Thompson has a grandfatherly hand in Linux, despite him technically not. It's a spiritual hand, if you will.