3 ms·

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.