4 ms·

In the isolated context of the quote you pulled, the authors were talking about history (note that they wrote "the early days of open source") and they're corre

by jasode 7y ago

In the isolated context of the quote you pulled, the authors were talking about history (note that they wrote "the early days of open source") and they're correct: in the time period before Eric Raymond et al popularized the term "open source" (~1998?)[0], we also called non-GPL software "free software". Rummaging through my archives, I looked at a README.TXT I wrote in 1992 for a software utility (including the C source code) I gave away for $0 and I used the term "free software" even though it was not GPL. (I wasn't even aware of GPL back then.) Today, my software would be called an "open source permissive license". In other words, RMS's essay from 2007 "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" may try to educate us on the difference between "free" vs "open source" but it can't go back in time and rewrite my historical usage of "free" in my README.TXT in 1992. [0] usage trend of label "open source" after 1998 essay "Cathedral & Bazaar": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source&ye...

tuukkah 7y ago
> I used the term "free software" even though it was not GPL. (I wasn't even aware of GPL back then.) Today, my software would be called an "open source permissive license". Free Software doesn't have to be licensed under the GPL. Open Source licenses and Free Software licenses are the same. Perhaps you're thinking of the distinction between copyleft (GPL style) and non-copyleft (BSD style)?
- jasode 7y ago
  >Free Software doesn't have to be licensed under the GPL. Yes, I understand that but using RMS's criteria in his 2007 essay (subsection "Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source"), my 1992 software (without strong copyleft protection) would be "open source" and not "free software". My point is that I called it "free software" even though it violates RMS's definition because the alternative label of "open source" didn't gain currency yet. Also, the "free as in libre vs free as in beer" wasn't a well-known meme in 1992 either: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=free+as+in+beer&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=15&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=free+as+in+bee...
  - tuukkah 7y ago
    Which criterion did your software violate in RMS's definition—I fail to see anything applicable in the subsection that you point to?
    - jasode 7y ago
      >Which criterion did your software violate in RMS's definition When I gave away my software for free (e.g. on a disk), it would have files such as: - foobar.exe (requires non-free proprietary Microsoft C compiler to rebuild this exe -- because of MS specific API calls) - foobar.c (had some proprietary C code in it) Basically, a user could run my software for $0, but they couldn't rebuild the executable using non-free tools. But in 1992, I wasn't aware of RMS's philosophy about "free as in libre" so I (and many others) just called it "free software".
carapace 7y ago
Technically correct. "The best kind of correct." I bow.

by jasode 7y ago

tuukkah 7y ago

> I used the term "free software" even though it was not GPL. (I wasn't even aware of GPL back then.) Today, my software would be called an "open source permissive license". Free Software doesn't have to be licensed under the GPL. Open Source licenses and Free Software licenses are the same. Perhaps you're thinking of the distinction between copyleft (GPL style) and non-copyleft (BSD style)?

jasode 7y ago
>Free Software doesn't have to be licensed under the GPL. Yes, I understand that but using RMS's criteria in his 2007 essay (subsection "Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source"), my 1992 software (without strong copyleft protection) would be "open source" and not "free software". My point is that I called it "free software" even though it violates RMS's definition because the alternative label of "open source" didn't gain currency yet. Also, the "free as in libre vs free as in beer" wasn't a well-known meme in 1992 either: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=free+as+in+beer&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=15&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=free+as+in+bee...
- tuukkah 7y ago
  Which criterion did your software violate in RMS's definition—I fail to see anything applicable in the subsection that you point to?
  - jasode 7y ago
    >Which criterion did your software violate in RMS's definition When I gave away my software for free (e.g. on a disk), it would have files such as: - foobar.exe (requires non-free proprietary Microsoft C compiler to rebuild this exe -- because of MS specific API calls) - foobar.c (had some proprietary C code in it) Basically, a user could run my software for $0, but they couldn't rebuild the executable using non-free tools. But in 1992, I wasn't aware of RMS's philosophy about "free as in libre" so I (and many others) just called it "free software".

carapace 7y ago

Technically correct. "The best kind of correct." I bow.