5 ms·

Open Source Explained In Lego

24 points by neilpeel 13y ago

rvlt 13y ago
Great work guys, it's cool you used lego and great work explaining open source.
clarry 13y ago
So Dr. Stallman is behind Open Source. Right. Nice presentation though.
- pekk 13y ago
  I think Stallman will argue that Open Source co-opted ideas from the Free Software movement. If that's true then you don't really have "Open Source" without Stallman's Free Software ideas.
  - superpatosainz 13y ago
    "I'd like to interject for a moment, what you call Open Source is actually FSF/Open Source or as I'd come to call it recently, FSF+Open Source".
  - clarry 13y ago
    I could agree with that line of reasoning. But then I would also have to point out that software freedom isn't some great revelation that came to Dr. Stallman and started with him alone. Free software existed before the movement. Considering that, would you really have Stallman's idea of Free Software without what came before? Maybe you would. But in any case I find it wrong to portray Stallman as the father of it all, let alone as the father of Open Source.
    - chimeracoder 13y ago
      In RMS's own words: > “An article mentioned that I was the father of the open source software. I wrote back to the editor that if it were to be true, then the child that was conceived (open source) was a product of artificial insemination with sperms stolen from me without my knowledge and consent”. [0] In any case, I don't think RMS would claim that he is the "father" of free software either, in the sense that he believes that software is inherently free. He may have been the father of a particular political movement (and organization) that advocates for this freedom, but saying that RMS "created" free software would be like saying that Martin Luther King, Jr.[1] "created" racial equality. [0] Taken from http://linux4sanmukh.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/what-i-learnt-from-stallman/ http://linux4sanmukh.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/what-i-learnt-... , though he's been saying this in his talks for years
- krisdol 13y ago
  You can't have free software without it being open source.
  - mwfunk 13y ago
    Sure, but free software in the purest FSF sense is a small subset of open source, which is a much broader and more inclusive term.
    - clarry 13y ago
      What makes it much broader and more inclusive?
      - 21echoes 13y ago
        There are things that are open source but not "Free Software" in the FSF sense of the term. Android springs to mind (not all pieces are open source, largely developed as close source with the source published after the fact, etc.)
        chimeracoder 13y ago
        > There are things that are open source but not "Free Software" in the FSF sense of the term. This is not true. As I note above, the OSI's definition of "Open Source"[0] and FSF's definition of "free software" are equivalent in practice; they are simply backed by different motivating ideologies. The entirety of Android is neither Open Source nor free (as in freedom), but individual components are. The portions of Android that are free (as in freedom) are also Open Source, and vice versa. [0] http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    You can't have open-source software without it being free (as in freedom). The "Open Source definition"[0], according to the OSI, is essentially equivalent to the four freedoms of software (posited by the FSF). One might be able to find a pathological edge case that satisfies one and not the other, but in practice, they're literally the same thing (differing only in the motivating ideology). [0] http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
It was a decent video, but I simply couldn't help but feel like screaming "Just say the words 'free software' and 'proprietary', for fuck's sake!" It is truly aggravating to what lengths some people will go to avoid using these words, as if they are some deeply offensive racial slurs. Especially considering they specifically mention Richard Stallman as the founder of it all, which is just a total slap in the face to his ideas. "Predatory" is actually a relatively accurate term, but it's the first time I've seen it used. We've already agreed on the vernacular: proprietary. Open source is a purely pragmatic issue and does not offer any moral and ethical guidelines concerning freedom in of itself. Something can still be open source yet proprietary (or "predatory") at the same time, as in Microsoft's shared source models, or GitHub's Atom editor. I'm very disappointed. This video was basically explaining the concepts of free software throughout the whole time, but for some inexplicable reason chose to stay away from addressing the proper terminology. Is it because "open source" is more marketable? Some hipster herd mentality? A revulsion towards the FSF? It would have been great if they contrasted "free" with "gratis", but alas. I guess at this point free software has been too deeply whitewashed. I wonder if RMS will repeat himself for the umpteenth time over this? Could have been more, but hey, I guess it's better than nothing.
- clarry 13y ago
  Open source is a purely pragmatic issue and does not offer any moral and ethical guidelines concerning freedom in of itself. Someone could say the same of free software. Who in your opinion has the authority to define terms? Is it because "open source" is more marketable? Could be. But since the video talks about more than just software, I find open source somewhat more fitting. Yes, it still refers to source code and therefore software. On the other hand, it's easy to take it as to referring to blueprints, recipes, etc.
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    Free software is inherently concerned with freedom and community. Whoever your hypothetical "someone" is, they are wrong. The free/libre model extends far beyond software, although it is primarily applied there.

24 points by neilpeel 13y ago

rvlt 13y ago

Great work guys, it's cool you used lego and great work explaining open source.

clarry 13y ago

So Dr. Stallman is behind Open Source. Right. Nice presentation though.

pekk 13y ago
I think Stallman will argue that Open Source co-opted ideas from the Free Software movement. If that's true then you don't really have "Open Source" without Stallman's Free Software ideas.
- superpatosainz 13y ago
  "I'd like to interject for a moment, what you call Open Source is actually FSF/Open Source or as I'd come to call it recently, FSF+Open Source".
- clarry 13y ago
  I could agree with that line of reasoning. But then I would also have to point out that software freedom isn't some great revelation that came to Dr. Stallman and started with him alone. Free software existed before the movement. Considering that, would you really have Stallman's idea of Free Software without what came before? Maybe you would. But in any case I find it wrong to portray Stallman as the father of it all, let alone as the father of Open Source.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    In RMS's own words: > “An article mentioned that I was the father of the open source software. I wrote back to the editor that if it were to be true, then the child that was conceived (open source) was a product of artificial insemination with sperms stolen from me without my knowledge and consent”. [0] In any case, I don't think RMS would claim that he is the "father" of free software either, in the sense that he believes that software is inherently free. He may have been the father of a particular political movement (and organization) that advocates for this freedom, but saying that RMS "created" free software would be like saying that Martin Luther King, Jr.[1] "created" racial equality. [0] Taken from http://linux4sanmukh.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/what-i-learnt-from-stallman/ http://linux4sanmukh.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/what-i-learnt-... , though he's been saying this in his talks for years
krisdol 13y ago
You can't have free software without it being open source.
- mwfunk 13y ago
  Sure, but free software in the purest FSF sense is a small subset of open source, which is a much broader and more inclusive term.
  - clarry 13y ago
    What makes it much broader and more inclusive?
    - 21echoes 13y ago
      There are things that are open source but not "Free Software" in the FSF sense of the term. Android springs to mind (not all pieces are open source, largely developed as close source with the source published after the fact, etc.)
      - chimeracoder 13y ago
        > There are things that are open source but not "Free Software" in the FSF sense of the term. This is not true. As I note above, the OSI's definition of "Open Source"[0] and FSF's definition of "free software" are equivalent in practice; they are simply backed by different motivating ideologies. The entirety of Android is neither Open Source nor free (as in freedom), but individual components are. The portions of Android that are free (as in freedom) are also Open Source, and vice versa. [0] http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  You can't have open-source software without it being free (as in freedom). The "Open Source definition"[0], according to the OSI, is essentially equivalent to the four freedoms of software (posited by the FSF). One might be able to find a pathological edge case that satisfies one and not the other, but in practice, they're literally the same thing (differing only in the motivating ideology). [0] http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

It was a decent video, but I simply couldn't help but feel like screaming "Just say the words 'free software' and 'proprietary', for fuck's sake!" It is truly aggravating to what lengths some people will go to avoid using these words, as if they are some deeply offensive racial slurs. Especially considering they specifically mention Richard Stallman as the founder of it all, which is just a total slap in the face to his ideas. "Predatory" is actually a relatively accurate term, but it's the first time I've seen it used. We've already agreed on the vernacular: proprietary. Open source is a purely pragmatic issue and does not offer any moral and ethical guidelines concerning freedom in of itself. Something can still be open source yet proprietary (or "predatory") at the same time, as in Microsoft's shared source models, or GitHub's Atom editor. I'm very disappointed. This video was basically explaining the concepts of free software throughout the whole time, but for some inexplicable reason chose to stay away from addressing the proper terminology. Is it because "open source" is more marketable? Some hipster herd mentality? A revulsion towards the FSF? It would have been great if they contrasted "free" with "gratis", but alas. I guess at this point free software has been too deeply whitewashed. I wonder if RMS will repeat himself for the umpteenth time over this? Could have been more, but hey, I guess it's better than nothing.

clarry 13y ago
Open source is a purely pragmatic issue and does not offer any moral and ethical guidelines concerning freedom in of itself. Someone could say the same of free software. Who in your opinion has the authority to define terms? Is it because "open source" is more marketable? Could be. But since the video talks about more than just software, I find open source somewhat more fitting. Yes, it still refers to source code and therefore software. On the other hand, it's easy to take it as to referring to blueprints, recipes, etc.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Free software is inherently concerned with freedom and community. Whoever your hypothetical "someone" is, they are wrong. The free/libre model extends far beyond software, although it is primarily applied there.