6 ms·

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

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.
dempseye 6y ago
Open Source = Newspeak created to sow confusion around the idea of free software so that developers release the products of their labour under licences that allow maximum rent to be extracted from them by corporations. According to Wikipedia: "[ESR and others] concluded that FSF's social activism was not appealing to companies like Netscape, and looked for a way to rebrand the Free software movement to emphasize the business potential of sharing and collaborating on software source code. The new name they chose was "Open-source", and quickly Bruce Perens, publisher Tim O'Reilly, Linus Torvalds, and others signed on to the rebranding. The Open Source Initiative was founded in February 1998 to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize open-source principles."
syshum 6y ago
>> Both Free Software and Open Source philosophies had at the core of them user freedoms with regards to software Observationally, and I am sure OSI would disagree, it seems to be Open Source has it core to be DEVELOPER freedom, not User Freedom. Open Source is about allowing developers of software access to source code, and be allowed to redistribute their source code with in the developer community, but Open Source has no problems with locking out USER freedom Where as Free Software is about freedom for USERS which would also include developers.
- type0 6y ago
  > Open Source is about allowing developers of software access to source code, and be allowed to redistribute their source code with in the developer community, but Open Source has no problems with locking out USER freedom Do you care to provide any proof for this?
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    The insistence of Libre Software on the 4 freedoms is more user-friendly?
  - syshum 6y ago
    Well if you look at the Open Source Landscape today it is dominated by Library's, frameworks, and Dev Tools used to create commercial software. this is largely non-copy left code that users of the end products that contain this "open source" can not access the code of the larger system and often times are not even aware of the open source code that is in the system they are using.. This would be in violation of Free Software Core Freedoms [2] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

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.

dempseye 6y ago

Open Source = Newspeak created to sow confusion around the idea of free software so that developers release the products of their labour under licences that allow maximum rent to be extracted from them by corporations. According to Wikipedia: "[ESR and others] concluded that FSF's social activism was not appealing to companies like Netscape, and looked for a way to rebrand the Free software movement to emphasize the business potential of sharing and collaborating on software source code. The new name they chose was "Open-source", and quickly Bruce Perens, publisher Tim O'Reilly, Linus Torvalds, and others signed on to the rebranding. The Open Source Initiative was founded in February 1998 to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize open-source principles."

syshum 6y ago

>> Both Free Software and Open Source philosophies had at the core of them user freedoms with regards to software Observationally, and I am sure OSI would disagree, it seems to be Open Source has it core to be DEVELOPER freedom, not User Freedom. Open Source is about allowing developers of software access to source code, and be allowed to redistribute their source code with in the developer community, but Open Source has no problems with locking out USER freedom Where as Free Software is about freedom for USERS which would also include developers.

type0 6y ago
> Open Source is about allowing developers of software access to source code, and be allowed to redistribute their source code with in the developer community, but Open Source has no problems with locking out USER freedom Do you care to provide any proof for this?
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  The insistence of Libre Software on the 4 freedoms is more user-friendly?
- syshum 6y ago
  Well if you look at the Open Source Landscape today it is dominated by Library's, frameworks, and Dev Tools used to create commercial software. this is largely non-copy left code that users of the end products that contain this "open source" can not access the code of the larger system and often times are not even aware of the open source code that is in the system they are using.. This would be in violation of Free Software Core Freedoms [2] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html