5 ms·

> For another, RMS created the free software movement, in an era where most software was proprietary. Stallman did a lot of things, but he most definitely did

> For another, RMS created the free software movement, in an era where most software was proprietary. Stallman did a lot of things, but he most definitely did not start the free software movement. Free software was the norm prior to the meeting of the Committee on New Technology Uses (CONTU) suggesting in 1977 that rather than try to amend the recently passed Copyright Act of 1976 they should just classify software as 'literature'. It continued to be the norm and was openly termed "Freeware" by author Jay Lucas at InfoWorld (until a certain lawyer, Andrew Fluegelman, trademarked the term and began threatening legal action if he didn't change the name of his "Freeware" column, leading to a contest which suggested the term "Shareware"). Most freeware of the time came with source code and the right to make modifications (in fact this is how a number of improvements were made to Fluegelman's own PC-TALK). It wasn't until after the coining of Shareware that the two terms were hijacked by people essentially using it to create freely recirculatable demos of otherwise proprietary products, much like 'free software' was later repackaged as 'open source'. I'm not saying you shouldn't be thankful for his contributions, but to pretend that BSD didn't exist, nor an entire tradition of free software prior to the rise of proprietary software, is simply wrong.

pessimizer 4y ago
Free Software is software where you're obligated to share your source code changes if you distribute them. It's not anything that was ever referred to once as "free software" outside of this definition, and it is not any software that is free. edit: hearing irrelevant histories like this makes me more upset that Stallman is the only person who keeps Free Software firmly in mind, and doesn't waver. Free software isn't a vibe, Open Source software can easily become Free Software if you relicense it within a GPL'd project (just as it can be incorporated into proprietary projects), but Open Source software is not Free Software. Free Software is what Stallman said it was, and has only been extended in a few logical ways that Stallman failed to anticipate ahead of time. Histories of people sharing source, and of not being able to copyright software are nice, but irrelevant.
- lvc_ 4y ago
  Free software doesn't need to be copyleft, which is what you're describing - eg, the FSF explicitly considers 3 clause BSD to be a free license. Similarly Open Source (as used by the OSI) doesn't require that you can incorporate into proprietary projects and it considers the GPL to be open source. Somewhat famously the definitions of the two terms are basically equivalent even though they're motivated quite differently.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Flimm 4y ago
  All copyleft software is Free software (as defined by the FSF), but not all Free software is copyleft. So it's incorrect to say that all Free software licenses obligate you to share your changes to the source code. Permissive licenses like MIT and BSD are also Free software licenses according to the FSF. See this explainer by the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
- bmacho 4y ago
  I think it is time to refuse to call GPL 'free software'. It is not free like freedom. It can be free as free beer, but since you must pay for it with your changes, and can't/hard to monetize them, free as beer is questionable as best.
  - tmtvl 4y ago
    I don't think you "must pay for it with your changes," as in article 5, Conveying Modified Source Versions, it only says that the work must do the following: - have a notice that you modified it, - have a notice that the work is licensed under the GPL, - be licensed under the GPL, and - if the work has interactive UIs, it must display Appropriate Legal Notices. It says nothing about contributing changes back, the only freedom it restricts is the "freedom" to restrict the freedom of others. It is like the whole "is prohibiting slavery reducing freedom" problem.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pessimizer 4y ago

Free Software is software where you're obligated to share your source code changes if you distribute them. It's not anything that was ever referred to once as "free software" outside of this definition, and it is not any software that is free. edit: hearing irrelevant histories like this makes me more upset that Stallman is the only person who keeps Free Software firmly in mind, and doesn't waver. Free software isn't a vibe, Open Source software can easily become Free Software if you relicense it within a GPL'd project (just as it can be incorporated into proprietary projects), but Open Source software is not Free Software. Free Software is what Stallman said it was, and has only been extended in a few logical ways that Stallman failed to anticipate ahead of time. Histories of people sharing source, and of not being able to copyright software are nice, but irrelevant.

lvc_ 4y ago
Free software doesn't need to be copyleft, which is what you're describing - eg, the FSF explicitly considers 3 clause BSD to be a free license. Similarly Open Source (as used by the OSI) doesn't require that you can incorporate into proprietary projects and it considers the GPL to be open source. Somewhat famously the definitions of the two terms are basically equivalent even though they're motivated quite differently.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Flimm 4y ago
All copyleft software is Free software (as defined by the FSF), but not all Free software is copyleft. So it's incorrect to say that all Free software licenses obligate you to share your changes to the source code. Permissive licenses like MIT and BSD are also Free software licenses according to the FSF. See this explainer by the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
bmacho 4y ago
I think it is time to refuse to call GPL 'free software'. It is not free like freedom. It can be free as free beer, but since you must pay for it with your changes, and can't/hard to monetize them, free as beer is questionable as best.
- tmtvl 4y ago
  I don't think you "must pay for it with your changes," as in article 5, Conveying Modified Source Versions, it only says that the work must do the following: - have a notice that you modified it, - have a notice that the work is licensed under the GPL, - be licensed under the GPL, and - if the work has interactive UIs, it must display Appropriate Legal Notices. It says nothing about contributing changes back, the only freedom it restricts is the "freedom" to restrict the freedom of others. It is like the whole "is prohibiting slavery reducing freedom" problem.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]