3 ms·

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, whi

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.

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.