3 ms·
The facts as presented by this article do not match the facts I remember. I'm an old fart and was actually alive and active writing software at that time. The
by fefe23 7y ago
The facts as presented by this article do not match the facts I remember. I'm an old fart and was actually alive and active writing software at that time.
The cathedral and the bazaar was not a book, it was an essay. They apparently later turned it into a book but I know nobody who read the book. The essay, in contrast, was read by everybody in the scene.
Here's how I remember it.
Open source has no specific meaning before esr claimed it.
And after he claimed it, crucially, open source did not mean you could not charge for the software.
I practice almost no source code was released under non-liberal licenses, but there are some notable exceptions. For example, Microsoft released the source code of the Windows kernel for research use to universities. AFAIK that technically means Windows is open source.
esr was not against releasing source code under non-liberal licenses. He was just convinced those would not stand a chance against code released under liberal licenses. Time has proven him right, I would say.
Also this article misses the point, I think. Open source was not meant to define or enshrine a methodology. It was coined because at the time people felt that the free software movement was holding itself back in the fight against Microsoft (google "halloween documents" to get more insight into esr's struggle against Microsoft) because it sounded like you could not make money with it. Also because the GNU General Public License said if you make changes to a piece of GPL code, the result must also be under the GPL. So in a sense GPL actually did impede commercial exploitation of free software.
At the time many libertarians (like esr) felt that the market would solve this if you just let it, and software is not the place to fight ideological wars about the freedom of software.
I'm just paraphrasing the arguments here as I understood them. Personally I come down on the pro-GPL side of the aisle.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- perl4ever 7y agoBefore personal computers, wasn't free/open software the default because there wasn't a mass market for software? I think I've been told something like that by someone of an older generation.