6 ms·

To be fair, "Open Source" basically coined to mean "free software, but not as Stallman means it."

by garmaine 5y ago

mastazi 5y ago
Yes, I've heard before that the expression "free software" predates "open source". Thanks for clarifying.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Predates is understating it - it was kind of a major dispute at one time. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
kragen 5y ago
This is absolutely not true. Stallman was in the group of people Cced on the email that day to get their support for using the newly-invented term "open source". He took longer than most to respond, and when he did, he responded negatively (and fairly aggressively, as I recall). But many long-time supporters of the FSF in that email discussion were totally in favor of the proposal, and it came as a surprise to me that Stallman wasn't.
- kubanczyk 5y ago
  I believe you. But it's not a stretch to say that "open source" was coined to mean something different than "free software" and it could be a proverbial hill to die on, ideologically. Source: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html Even if it was surprising, it was more than just a whim. As you see, Raymond didn't see it as disturbing or incomprehensible.
  - kragen 5y ago
    Your source does not support your claim. On the contrary, it explains that the intended difference is rhetorical rather than ideological or semantic.
- garmaine 5y ago
  The term “Open Source” was coined by Christine Peterson in the context of a discussion about a source available project which did not meet RMS’ viral conditions for “free software.” Peterson suggested “open source” as an alternative phrase, and it spread from there.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > The term “Open Source” was coined by Christine Peterson I think this has been shown to be something of a myth. The term clearly predates when she claims to have coined it. http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html
    - andrewshadura 5y ago
      If you carefully read the email you linked you'll see the context is different and open source (and definitely not open source software) is not used as a term on its own.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        Yes the term didn't have exactly the same meaning, but that's sort of the point. The term Open Source, as a term related to software code access, predated the OSI and Peterson. They took an existing term which other people were already using, claimed it for their own, and started trying to tell people how to use it. They even tried to trademark it!
    - cxr 5y ago
      > this has been shown to be something of a myth No, it hasn't. The only thing that's _clear_ is that, despite a handful of likeminded folks perennially floating this claim here and being challenged on it, evidence overwhelmingly shows that the term "open source" was minted in 1998 exactly the way history says it was, and that some people on the wrong side of hubris and/or the Mandela effect refuse to accept it. It's like the software world's very own strain of truther conspiracy. What _has_ been shown is that there exists a document predating 1998 in which the words "open" and "source" are incidentally adjacent—in a completely different grammatical context. It is telling, now just as it was the last time, that this slippery document (which has been perniciously retitled, no less) is The One that is always held up as proof—instead of a representative sample of the, you know, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of examples showing "open source" in casual use that would be expected to exist if the claim actually held any water. > Linus's [and the BSDs'] disagreement with RMS's ideology is well known, so if "open source" were really already a thing before 1998, then we should expect that the number of times "open source" appears among his cohort prior to 1998 would be [...] as common as it is today. For it not to show up before that point and then to explode in use post-mozilla.org[...]
greyman 5y ago
Exactly. I have nothing against RMS, but in my eyes he is just a typical leftie person - makes up an own definition of something, and then runs around a tries to convince everyone that his definition is the only correct one and the term must mean exactly what he claims it means.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Since he made up not only "an own definition" but pretty much the whole idea and concept of Free Software, I'd say that yes, the term actually does mean exactly what he says it means and nothing else.
bitwize 5y ago
As I like to say it, in Lisp terms open source and free software are EQUAL but not EQ. That is, they are defined to mean the same thing but have different underlying reasoning. Open source really is just free software with sexier marketing. ESR and RMS were close friends, once, before RMS went full CWC. Based on ESR's blog posts I would guess his perspective to be that yes, proprietary software is inherently evil, but you can't say that if you want to win hearts and minds in the real world. You have to talk up the practical, bottom line advantages: how is releasing the source code under a liberal license going to contribute value to our company and to society at large? And how can you make money while doing this? That will get the ear of mainstream society, especially decision makers in government and business. Not Stallman's wear sackcloth, eat bugs, and cry into the wilderness approach. The Eric Conspiracy's plan worked a little too well, and thanks to sexy marketing corporations have embraced open source and now have a vast library of code with which to do nefarious things unheard of in the era when Microsoft was the evil empire.
CRConrad 5y ago
> To be fair, "Open Source" basically coined to mean "free software, but not as Stallman means it ... ... i.e. let's not really care about the 'freedom' bit." There, FTFY.

To be fair, "Open Source" basically coined to mean "free software, but not as Stallman means it."

mastazi 5y ago

Yes, I've heard before that the expression "free software" predates "open source". Thanks for clarifying.

bawolff 5y ago
Predates is understating it - it was kind of a major dispute at one time. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

kragen 5y ago

This is absolutely not true. Stallman was in the group of people Cced on the email that day to get their support for using the newly-invented term "open source". He took longer than most to respond, and when he did, he responded negatively (and fairly aggressively, as I recall). But many long-time supporters of the FSF in that email discussion were totally in favor of the proposal, and it came as a surprise to me that Stallman wasn't.

kubanczyk 5y ago
I believe you. But it's not a stretch to say that "open source" was coined to mean something different than "free software" and it could be a proverbial hill to die on, ideologically. Source: http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html Even if it was surprising, it was more than just a whim. As you see, Raymond didn't see it as disturbing or incomprehensible.
- kragen 5y ago
  Your source does not support your claim. On the contrary, it explains that the intended difference is rhetorical rather than ideological or semantic.
garmaine 5y ago
The term “Open Source” was coined by Christine Peterson in the context of a discussion about a source available project which did not meet RMS’ viral conditions for “free software.” Peterson suggested “open source” as an alternative phrase, and it spread from there.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > The term “Open Source” was coined by Christine Peterson I think this has been shown to be something of a myth. The term clearly predates when she claims to have coined it. http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html
  - andrewshadura 5y ago
    If you carefully read the email you linked you'll see the context is different and open source (and definitely not open source software) is not used as a term on its own.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Yes the term didn't have exactly the same meaning, but that's sort of the point. The term Open Source, as a term related to software code access, predated the OSI and Peterson. They took an existing term which other people were already using, claimed it for their own, and started trying to tell people how to use it. They even tried to trademark it!
  - cxr 5y ago
    > this has been shown to be something of a myth No, it hasn't. The only thing that's _clear_ is that, despite a handful of likeminded folks perennially floating this claim here and being challenged on it, evidence overwhelmingly shows that the term "open source" was minted in 1998 exactly the way history says it was, and that some people on the wrong side of hubris and/or the Mandela effect refuse to accept it. It's like the software world's very own strain of truther conspiracy. What _has_ been shown is that there exists a document predating 1998 in which the words "open" and "source" are incidentally adjacent—in a completely different grammatical context. It is telling, now just as it was the last time, that this slippery document (which has been perniciously retitled, no less) is The One that is always held up as proof—instead of a representative sample of the, you know, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of examples showing "open source" in casual use that would be expected to exist if the claim actually held any water. > Linus's [and the BSDs'] disagreement with RMS's ideology is well known, so if "open source" were really already a thing before 1998, then we should expect that the number of times "open source" appears among his cohort prior to 1998 would be [...] as common as it is today. For it not to show up before that point and then to explode in use post-mozilla.org[...]

greyman 5y ago

Exactly. I have nothing against RMS, but in my eyes he is just a typical leftie person - makes up an own definition of something, and then runs around a tries to convince everyone that his definition is the only correct one and the term must mean exactly what he claims it means.

CRConrad 5y ago
Since he made up not only "an own definition" but pretty much the whole idea and concept of Free Software, I'd say that yes, the term actually does mean exactly what he says it means and nothing else.

bitwize 5y ago

As I like to say it, in Lisp terms open source and free software are EQUAL but not EQ. That is, they are defined to mean the same thing but have different underlying reasoning. Open source really is just free software with sexier marketing. ESR and RMS were close friends, once, before RMS went full CWC. Based on ESR's blog posts I would guess his perspective to be that yes, proprietary software is inherently evil, but you can't say that if you want to win hearts and minds in the real world. You have to talk up the practical, bottom line advantages: how is releasing the source code under a liberal license going to contribute value to our company and to society at large? And how can you make money while doing this? That will get the ear of mainstream society, especially decision makers in government and business. Not Stallman's wear sackcloth, eat bugs, and cry into the wilderness approach. The Eric Conspiracy's plan worked a little too well, and thanks to sexy marketing corporations have embraced open source and now have a vast library of code with which to do nefarious things unheard of in the era when Microsoft was the evil empire.

CRConrad 5y ago

> To be fair, "Open Source" basically coined to mean "free software, but not as Stallman means it ... ... i.e. let's not really care about the 'freedom' bit." There, FTFY.