Rjack <[email protected]> writes: > Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >> "I never imagined that the Free Software Movement would spawn a >> watered-down alternative, the Open Source Movement, which would >> become so well-known that people would ask me questions about >> 'open source' thinking that I work under that banner."; Richard >> Stallman http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/RMS >> >> Even though the BSD license was first used in 1980, >> http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html and the first use of the GPL >> license was in 1988, http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/ the >> outright lying and revisionist propaganda efforts of the Free >> Software Foundation continue to this day. >> >> Where exactly did RMS imply that the BSD license was written >> before the GNU GPL? >> >> The Open Source movement was created after the Free Software >> movement, you can ask ESR about that. > > The conceptual underpinnings of "open source" and its benefits > predated ESR -- you're indulging in revisionist history again.
Not at all. Like the Free Software movement, the Open Source movement is a political manifestation of principles that were at work without a formal definition or organisation behind it before. In contrast to the Free Software movement, the Open Source movement did not initially introduce its own licenses for meeting their purposes: they basically just reinterpreted the aim of existing licensed according to their views. The aim was not actually changing the licensing practises - the Open Software movement is fine with the GPL as a license - but rather changing the industry views of those licenses. It may be argued that the Creative Commons licenses were coined as a reaction and in view of Open Source views and focuses. But they came considerably afterwards, and not in connection with the original creators of the term. > The term "open source" wasn't formally coined until 1998 around the > code for Netscape Navigator -- long after computer program source code > was openly available. Playing with the word "movement" until it fits > your particular definition is constrained by *real* open source > philosophy and history. There was no cohesive philosophy and history before ESR invented the term and wrote the corresponding papers. > The Computer Science Research Group (1977-1995) at Berkeley was one of > the root source communities underlying open source software. The Free > Software movement was "spawned" by MIT's Richard Stallman and his > attempt to co-opt open source code licensing. By no stretch of the > imagination did the CSRG co-opt the closed socialist goals of RMS -- > that's simply revisionist bullshit from Stallman worshippers. > > Sincerely, > Rjack :) Well, either this "Sincerely" is quite the opposite, or you are incredibly shoddy and/or stupid in fact-finding. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
