4 ms·

OSS predates Stallman, and will outlast him. His contributions are overstated, as is the benefit of Free Software, generally, as compared to more permissive li

OSS predates Stallman, and will outlast him. His contributions are overstated, as is the benefit of Free Software, generally, as compared to more permissive licenses.

flippinburgers 7y ago
Free Software is transparent science. I don't see how you could argue that the benefit is overstated. Ideas are built on one another and that is precisely how advancements are made. What he pushes for is extremely important.
msla 7y ago
> His contributions are overstated, as is the benefit of Free Software, generally, as compared to more permissive licenses. That's certainly what companies which made their fortunes out of taking software out of the commons and turning it into products want people to think. Enough programmers don't want to be turned into unpaid employees that copyleft licenses have substantial uptake. Also: > OSS predates Stallman, and will outlast him. ... refusing to see a distinction between OSS and Free Software? Neat rhetorical trick.
- msla 7y ago
  The downvotes without replies are proof I've hit a nerve, and am saying things others cannot stand because they cannot refute them.
mistrial9 7y ago
I met with Stallman once, in a room of two dozen people, around Stanford in 1987 or so .. I can tell you the "OSS" or whatnot you are referring to, existed in a very different world then. Stallman had a twenty minute talk, which was a strict and tightly worded explanation of the significance and reasoning behind his proposals. It was very much the utter opposite of a two line throw-away judge-and-jury declaration of conclusion, as seen above.
garmaine 7y ago
The term “open source software” was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998 (edit: thanks!) to distinguish from GPL-style free software. Open source (inclusive of both) never really had any traction outside a few limited domains until the GNU project.
- schoen 7y ago
  > invented by Christine Peterson in the early 90’s to distinguish from GPL-style free software Invented by Christine Peterson in the 90s, yes (though it was 1998); to distinguish from GPL-style, no. The Open Source Initiative immediately listed the GPL as an Open Source license, and the FSF had already described permissive licensing as free software (as distinct from copyleft licensing). https://web.archive.org/web/19980119061702/http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/categories.html https://web.archive.org/web/19980119061702/http://www.fsf.or... > The X Window System illustrates this. The X Consortium releases X11 with distribution terms that make it non-copylefted free software. If you wish, you can get a copy which has those distribution terms and is free. However, there are non-free versions as well, and there are popular workstations and PC graphics boards for which non-free versions are the only ones that work. If you are using this hardware, X11 is not free software for you. https://web.archive.org/web/19981201223102/http://www.opensource.org/faq.html https://web.archive.org/web/19981201223102/http://www.openso... > GIMP > Gnome > Linux > Open Source is a marketing program for free software. It's a pitch for `free software' on solid pragmatic grounds rather than ideological tub-thumping. The winning substance has not changed, the losing attitude and symbolism have.
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    If it's a marketing name, it completely misses the essential point that it's about Freedom, not the "open" part of it.
    - schoen 7y ago
      That's what FSF and OSI most disagreed about at the time!
ekianjo 7y ago
> OSS predates Stallman If you are talking about the term OSS, then you are completely wrong. It came long after "Free Software" was coined and was named differently to mark a different movement.

OSS predates Stallman, and will outlast him. His contributions are overstated, as is the benefit of Free Software, generally, as compared to more permissive licenses.

flippinburgers 7y ago

Free Software is transparent science. I don't see how you could argue that the benefit is overstated. Ideas are built on one another and that is precisely how advancements are made. What he pushes for is extremely important.

msla 7y ago

> His contributions are overstated, as is the benefit of Free Software, generally, as compared to more permissive licenses. That's certainly what companies which made their fortunes out of taking software out of the commons and turning it into products want people to think. Enough programmers don't want to be turned into unpaid employees that copyleft licenses have substantial uptake. Also: > OSS predates Stallman, and will outlast him. ... refusing to see a distinction between OSS and Free Software? Neat rhetorical trick.

msla 7y ago
The downvotes without replies are proof I've hit a nerve, and am saying things others cannot stand because they cannot refute them.

mistrial9 7y ago

I met with Stallman once, in a room of two dozen people, around Stanford in 1987 or so .. I can tell you the "OSS" or whatnot you are referring to, existed in a very different world then. Stallman had a twenty minute talk, which was a strict and tightly worded explanation of the significance and reasoning behind his proposals. It was very much the utter opposite of a two line throw-away judge-and-jury declaration of conclusion, as seen above.

garmaine 7y ago

The term “open source software” was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998 (edit: thanks!) to distinguish from GPL-style free software. Open source (inclusive of both) never really had any traction outside a few limited domains until the GNU project.

schoen 7y ago
> invented by Christine Peterson in the early 90’s to distinguish from GPL-style free software Invented by Christine Peterson in the 90s, yes (though it was 1998); to distinguish from GPL-style, no. The Open Source Initiative immediately listed the GPL as an Open Source license, and the FSF had already described permissive licensing as free software (as distinct from copyleft licensing). https://web.archive.org/web/19980119061702/http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/categories.html https://web.archive.org/web/19980119061702/http://www.fsf.or... > The X Window System illustrates this. The X Consortium releases X11 with distribution terms that make it non-copylefted free software. If you wish, you can get a copy which has those distribution terms and is free. However, there are non-free versions as well, and there are popular workstations and PC graphics boards for which non-free versions are the only ones that work. If you are using this hardware, X11 is not free software for you. https://web.archive.org/web/19981201223102/http://www.opensource.org/faq.html https://web.archive.org/web/19981201223102/http://www.openso... > GIMP > Gnome > Linux > Open Source is a marketing program for free software. It's a pitch for `free software' on solid pragmatic grounds rather than ideological tub-thumping. The winning substance has not changed, the losing attitude and symbolism have.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  If it's a marketing name, it completely misses the essential point that it's about Freedom, not the "open" part of it.
  - schoen 7y ago
    That's what FSF and OSI most disagreed about at the time!

ekianjo 7y ago

> OSS predates Stallman If you are talking about the term OSS, then you are completely wrong. It came long after "Free Software" was coined and was named differently to mark a different movement.