4 ms·

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

by clarry 13y ago

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

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

by 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