3 ms·

You use terms in a different way than I. The "Open Source world" started in late 1998. The free software world started in 1983, and some free software developer

by dalke 12y ago

You use terms in a different way than I. The "Open Source world" started in late 1998. The free software world started in 1983, and some free software developers do not identify as being part of the open source world. Hence the most accurate term, though clumsy, is "free and open source software" or "FOSS". The history of the CeCILL license shows that it's possible for something to be free software according to the FSF but not regarded by the OSI as open source. (CeCILL 2.1 is both free and open; I refer to earlier versions.) Nor does free software have any requirement to "give back". A for-profit company can internally use as much free software as it wants. It's only when the free software is distributed outside of the company where the licensing clause come into force, and it only applies to the recipient. I think this is more correctly stated as "give forward".

hga 12y ago
Nope, open source as in for example X goes back no later than the mid-80s. It very specifically defeated the technically superior Sun NeWS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeWS) due to the "MIT License" it used vs. Sun's demand of ~$100K to play their game. And that was a primary driver in James Gosling and company requiring Sun to liberally licence Java, his next project. (And Gosling, BTW, created the EMACS that Gnu EMACS is a fork of.)