3 ms·

We've come a long way from Bill Gates' original characterization of open source (long before it was called that) as thievery - https://worldhistoryproject.org/1

by oil25 7y ago

We've come a long way from Bill Gates' original characterization of open source (long before it was called that) as thievery - https://worldhistoryproject.org/1976/2/bill-gates-writes-open-letter-to-hobbyists https://worldhistoryproject.org/1976/2/bill-gates-writes-ope... I'm still sure as ever Microsoft is no friend of free (as in Freedom, not price) software and can't help but shake my head at this latest publicity stunt. I wouldn't trust their software any further than I throw it.

hollerith 7y ago
"Open source" has a precise definition [1], and your comment does not use the term correctly. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd In particular, if the software or "work" was never made freely available by its lawful owner, it is not open source.
- oil25 7y ago
  Bill wrote his letter 21 years before this definition materialized and it actually served to inspire the free software/open source concept altogether. > There is a viable alternative to the problems raised by Bill Gates in his irate letter to computer hobbyists concerning "ripping off" software. When software is free, or so inexpensive that it's easier to pay for it than to duplicate it, then it won't be "stolen". —Jim Warren, July 1976
halter73 7y ago
That open letter had nothing to do open source (i.e libre) software as we understand the term today. It was simply asking hobbyists to pay for Altair BASIC which was not distributed under an open source license. I don't see how that's anything but reasonable unless you take the position that all software ought to be open source regardless the creators wishes.
oaiey 7y ago
Microsoft of today is only interested in one thing: earning money. Like any other corporation. if contributing to free software earns money (Azure, Developer mindshare, Store) they will do it. And the Linux foundation knows how to defend itself IP wise. It is about earning money. RedHat does it. Microsoft does it.

by oil25 7y ago

hollerith 7y ago

"Open source" has a precise definition [1], and your comment does not use the term correctly. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd In particular, if the software or "work" was never made freely available by its lawful owner, it is not open source.

oil25 7y ago
Bill wrote his letter 21 years before this definition materialized and it actually served to inspire the free software/open source concept altogether. > There is a viable alternative to the problems raised by Bill Gates in his irate letter to computer hobbyists concerning "ripping off" software. When software is free, or so inexpensive that it's easier to pay for it than to duplicate it, then it won't be "stolen". —Jim Warren, July 1976

halter73 7y ago

That open letter had nothing to do open source (i.e libre) software as we understand the term today. It was simply asking hobbyists to pay for Altair BASIC which was not distributed under an open source license. I don't see how that's anything but reasonable unless you take the position that all software ought to be open source regardless the creators wishes.

oaiey 7y ago

Microsoft of today is only interested in one thing: earning money. Like any other corporation. if contributing to free software earns money (Azure, Developer mindshare, Store) they will do it. And the Linux foundation knows how to defend itself IP wise. It is about earning money. RedHat does it. Microsoft does it.