6 ms·

It's hard to take this seriously because it starts with false premises. Both the open source definition (from the open source initiative), which defines open so

It's hard to take this seriously because it starts with false premises. Both the open source definition (from the open source initiative), which defines open source software, and the free software definition (from the free software foundation), which defines free software, include both protective (copyleft) licenses and permissive licenses. When the article starts with fundamental false assumptions, it's hard to take its conclusions very seriously. See: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

kccqzy 6y ago
I think you are being a bit too nitpicky. When the author says open source, he clearly means non-copyleft open source.
- dwheeler 6y ago
  The problem is that he is playing fast and loose with definitions, and he is also playing fast and loose with history. Copyleft started with GPL version 1, which was its first embodiment. Sharing source code in a permissive way started long before that. The term open source software came later, but people were doing this in the 1950s and 60s. His notion that permissive software licenses only started later, after copyleft, ignores actual history.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Companies like IBM would provide customers with sources of their software for.a long time, without any permission to use it as the customer sees fit, though. This has nothing to do with open-source or free software licenses.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      IBM wasn't the only company or person developing software. Consider TeX, released before 1980. Is that open-source? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#Free_software_before_the_1980s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc... , which includes a link to the work by SHARE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHARE_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHARE_(computing) . > In 1959 SHARE [a volunteer-run user group for IBM mainframe computers that was founded in 1955] released the SHARE Operating System (SOS), originally for the IBM 709 computer, later ported to the IBM 7090. SOS was one of the first instances of "commons-based peer production" now widely used in the development of free and open-source software such as Linux and the GNU project.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    I'm sure some people in the 50's and 60's said "make sure to show me what you change" so copyleft would also have been around.
  - Delk 6y ago
    Also, in terms of definitions, free software (even if you equal that with copyleft) doesn't really require that changes "must be submitted to the original maker for redistribution" (quote from TFA). Copyleft, at least in the sense it's generally used, only requires that if you redistribute the code, the redistribution (including modifications) must also be free and copyleft. This might be nitpicking, but the wording could give a wrong impression of what free software is or isn't, and in a post that's essentially about the cultural and social foundations and relative merits of different models, that's IMO quite important.
- ShroudedNight 6y ago
  MIT and BSD licenses date from the late 1980s, and from what I recall (vaguely - I was very not old when this was occurring) were explicitly not "Copyleft" even years before the Open Source Initiative was a gleam in its founders' eyes.
  - dwheeler 6y ago
    MIT license history is here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9263265 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=926... First version 1984, revised version more widely used 1986. I'm sure that software was released in a permissive wray long before that, but I'd have to do more research, and that's enough for my point. GPL version 1 was released in 1989: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
    - ShroudedNight 6y ago
      > I'm sure that software was released in a permissive gray long before that, but I'd have to do more research, and that's enough for my point. For a few bonus swings at the horse, MVS source was freely available until 3.8j in 1981 and AT&T UNIX V6 source was well distributed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVS#Modern_MVS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVS#Modern_MVS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions%27_Commentary_on_UNIX_6th_Edition,_with_Source_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions%27_Commentary_on_UNIX_6t...
      - dwheeler 6y ago
        To be fair, in earlier times it wasn't clear if software was copyrightable. In the US the Copyright Act of 1976, which became effective on January 1, 1978, clearly stated that Congress intended software to be copyrightable; before that there were many questions. So before that, in the US many considered any source code distribution as equivalent to a permissive license. Unix v6 source was well distributed, but the Lyons book (with Unix source code)) was only distributed as Samizdat for years because it wasn't clear it was legal.
    - 6y ago
derekp7 6y ago
I've only skimmed the article, but this is what my perceptions are on the subject. The way I've always perceived it is that the Free Software movement promotes that Free Software is good, and that non-free software is bad (or unethical). Whereas the Open Source movement was more of a counter to that second point -- non-free software isn't unethical, and Free Software is good (and can often be better than non-free), and that pragmatism is more important than blind adherence to a philosophy. The next era applies to specific types of software that fits with a service-based monetization scheme which funds the software development, which says that benefiting from the software at the expense of those funding it is bad. It sounds to me that this is worth calling out as a divergence in philosophy from the previous two world view. (No judgment calls here, I don't have a horse in this race, just observation). Edit: I see which world view this article gets its philosophy from after looking at it more carefully. Both Free Software and Open Source philosophies had at the core of them user freedoms with regards to software. The direction that this article is coming from is monetization as a first priority, and the software license (and associated end-user rights) are secondary to monetization (again, not judging, just observing).
- prepend 6y ago
  But this “new era” is just a move back to the pre-free era where software was proprietary. So it’s a regression.
  - derekp7 6y ago
    That very well may be, especially when viewed from the Free Software philosophy. Also note that Stalman may view Open Source as a regrission too. From the Monetization side (another word that RMS seamed to dislike), they see it as progression. What would be really nice is either something that works for everyone, or baring that, recognition from all groups that different people have different needs, and those needs have some validity.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    There was no era without free or open source software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#Free_software_before_the_1980s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc... > In the 1950s and into the 1960s almost all software was produced by academics and corporate researchers working in collaboration, often shared as public-domain software. ... > The first example of free and open-source software is believed to be the A-2 system, developed at the UNIVAC division of Remington Rand in 1953,[5] which was released to customers with its source code. ... > Some free software which was developed in the 1970s continues to be developed and used, such as TeX (developed by Donald Knuth)[8] and SPICE.[9] You should also recall that software wasn't considered copyrightable before the 1974: > Therefore, software had no licenses attached and was shared as public-domain software, typically with source code. The CONTU decision plus later court decisions such as Apple v. Franklin in 1983 for object code, gave computer programs the copyright status of literary works and started the licensing of software and the shrink-wrap closed source software business model.
type0 6y ago
The author is conflating Copyleft with Software Freedom movement. This kinds of misrepresentations are prevalent, look how BBC website for kids misrepresenting what Open Source is: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zhx26yc/revision/11 https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zhx26yc/revision/11

kccqzy 6y ago

I think you are being a bit too nitpicky. When the author says open source, he clearly means non-copyleft open source.

dwheeler 6y ago
The problem is that he is playing fast and loose with definitions, and he is also playing fast and loose with history. Copyleft started with GPL version 1, which was its first embodiment. Sharing source code in a permissive way started long before that. The term open source software came later, but people were doing this in the 1950s and 60s. His notion that permissive software licenses only started later, after copyleft, ignores actual history.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Companies like IBM would provide customers with sources of their software for.a long time, without any permission to use it as the customer sees fit, though. This has nothing to do with open-source or free software licenses.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    IBM wasn't the only company or person developing software. Consider TeX, released before 1980. Is that open-source? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#Free_software_before_the_1980s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc... , which includes a link to the work by SHARE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHARE_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHARE_(computing) . > In 1959 SHARE [a volunteer-run user group for IBM mainframe computers that was founded in 1955] released the SHARE Operating System (SOS), originally for the IBM 709 computer, later ported to the IBM 7090. SOS was one of the first instances of "commons-based peer production" now widely used in the development of free and open-source software such as Linux and the GNU project.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  I'm sure some people in the 50's and 60's said "make sure to show me what you change" so copyleft would also have been around.
- Delk 6y ago
  Also, in terms of definitions, free software (even if you equal that with copyleft) doesn't really require that changes "must be submitted to the original maker for redistribution" (quote from TFA). Copyleft, at least in the sense it's generally used, only requires that if you redistribute the code, the redistribution (including modifications) must also be free and copyleft. This might be nitpicking, but the wording could give a wrong impression of what free software is or isn't, and in a post that's essentially about the cultural and social foundations and relative merits of different models, that's IMO quite important.
ShroudedNight 6y ago
MIT and BSD licenses date from the late 1980s, and from what I recall (vaguely - I was very not old when this was occurring) were explicitly not "Copyleft" even years before the Open Source Initiative was a gleam in its founders' eyes.
- dwheeler 6y ago
  MIT license history is here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9263265 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=926... First version 1984, revised version more widely used 1986. I'm sure that software was released in a permissive wray long before that, but I'd have to do more research, and that's enough for my point. GPL version 1 was released in 1989: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
  - ShroudedNight 6y ago
    > I'm sure that software was released in a permissive gray long before that, but I'd have to do more research, and that's enough for my point. For a few bonus swings at the horse, MVS source was freely available until 3.8j in 1981 and AT&T UNIX V6 source was well distributed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVS#Modern_MVS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVS#Modern_MVS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions%27_Commentary_on_UNIX_6th_Edition,_with_Source_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions%27_Commentary_on_UNIX_6t...
    - dwheeler 6y ago
      To be fair, in earlier times it wasn't clear if software was copyrightable. In the US the Copyright Act of 1976, which became effective on January 1, 1978, clearly stated that Congress intended software to be copyrightable; before that there were many questions. So before that, in the US many considered any source code distribution as equivalent to a permissive license. Unix v6 source was well distributed, but the Lyons book (with Unix source code)) was only distributed as Samizdat for years because it wasn't clear it was legal.
  - 6y ago

derekp7 6y ago

I've only skimmed the article, but this is what my perceptions are on the subject. The way I've always perceived it is that the Free Software movement promotes that Free Software is good, and that non-free software is bad (or unethical). Whereas the Open Source movement was more of a counter to that second point -- non-free software isn't unethical, and Free Software is good (and can often be better than non-free), and that pragmatism is more important than blind adherence to a philosophy. The next era applies to specific types of software that fits with a service-based monetization scheme which funds the software development, which says that benefiting from the software at the expense of those funding it is bad. It sounds to me that this is worth calling out as a divergence in philosophy from the previous two world view. (No judgment calls here, I don't have a horse in this race, just observation). Edit: I see which world view this article gets its philosophy from after looking at it more carefully. Both Free Software and Open Source philosophies had at the core of them user freedoms with regards to software. The direction that this article is coming from is monetization as a first priority, and the software license (and associated end-user rights) are secondary to monetization (again, not judging, just observing).

prepend 6y ago
But this “new era” is just a move back to the pre-free era where software was proprietary. So it’s a regression.
- derekp7 6y ago
  That very well may be, especially when viewed from the Free Software philosophy. Also note that Stalman may view Open Source as a regrission too. From the Monetization side (another word that RMS seamed to dislike), they see it as progression. What would be really nice is either something that works for everyone, or baring that, recognition from all groups that different people have different needs, and those needs have some validity.
- eesmith 6y ago
  There was no era without free or open source software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#Free_software_before_the_1980s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc... > In the 1950s and into the 1960s almost all software was produced by academics and corporate researchers working in collaboration, often shared as public-domain software. ... > The first example of free and open-source software is believed to be the A-2 system, developed at the UNIVAC division of Remington Rand in 1953,[5] which was released to customers with its source code. ... > Some free software which was developed in the 1970s continues to be developed and used, such as TeX (developed by Donald Knuth)[8] and SPICE.[9] You should also recall that software wasn't considered copyrightable before the 1974: > Therefore, software had no licenses attached and was shared as public-domain software, typically with source code. The CONTU decision plus later court decisions such as Apple v. Franklin in 1983 for object code, gave computer programs the copyright status of literary works and started the licensing of software and the shrink-wrap closed source software business model.

type0 6y ago

The author is conflating Copyleft with Software Freedom movement. This kinds of misrepresentations are prevalent, look how BBC website for kids misrepresenting what Open Source is: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zhx26yc/revision/11 https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zhx26yc/revision/11