Huh?!?

Story: At Birth, Open Source Was About Saving Money, Not Sharing CodeTotal Replies: 22
Author Content
JaseP

Apr 17, 2015
4:58 PM EDT
Huh?!? I don't get it (the article's logic)... The article discusses Stallman,... arguably the founder of the Free (as in Freedom) Software movement,... Discusses the fact that Torvalds was looking to play with a Minix clone, but didn't want to pay the license fee,... decided that he couldn't do it all himself, and so opened up the code (OK the article doesn't say that specifically, yet, that's what happened),... Yet, comes to the conclusion that it was all about free (as in free beer) ...

So,... GNU Free Software existed as far back as 1984 (or farther?),... The Linux kernel was open sourced from the beginning,... Yet,... The article concludes that it was all about "the Benjamins." I think the best anyone can conclude is that it was about equal parts of "free:" Free Beer/Freedom...
skelband

Apr 17, 2015
6:20 PM EDT
The article is bizarre. The vast majority of open source or free software can be sold and in many cases actually is.

Without a doubt one of the biggest advantages of free software and open source software is that it is freely available (as in beer).

But I think the author is confusing some different issues here that do have some chronological correlation, but he's drawing the causation assumption which so many fall into the trap of.

Around the time that RMS was complaining about the advent of closed source software, software was starting to be sold as a separate product to be charged for, but enforced primarily by making it closed source and distribution-restricted based on licensing. RMS himself has always affirmed that his main goal was, and still is, freedom.
notbob

Apr 17, 2015
6:37 PM EDT
I started messing with Linux in back in '97. I knew it was free (as in beer) but that is not why I changed from Microsoft to Linux. I jes got tired of having my Windows box trashed by hackers, a common occurrence, back then, as I was exploring all the seedier sites, online. After throwing $50 away on Symantic security software, I decided to try Linux. Yes, I did not like paying for Windows junk, but the lack of cost for Linux was only a small factor in my changing. Besides, Linux is far from costing nothing. It's a good thing Tim O'Reilly is Irish cuz I've sure passed a lotta green to that guy! ;)

ljmp

Apr 17, 2015
7:46 PM EDT
GNU is generally construed to have started when RMS quit his job and started writing FOSS code -- because he couldn't customize his printer.

I'm not sure it makes any sense to write that RMS had $$$ savings in mind when he started GNU.

Linus is quoted somewhere as indicating he started the Linux kernel project because he wanted a Unix like OS for no cash transfer. Sure... But does that statement equate to saving money?

Arguably, time is the most valuable resource people have... and all of the early FOSS developers spend oodles of time writing code that duplicated Unix function and architecture. FOSS code is worth quite a bit of $$$$ today, because of the developers who spent their [money] writing code rather than buying it from someone else...

I have to say, I do not support the oddly written and rather judgmental assumption that the early FOSS developers were after money savings rather than intellectual control.

Anyway, I don't think I'll buy the book when it comes out.
kikinovak

Apr 18, 2015
3:38 AM EDT
Here's a link to a series of five broadcasts I did for a french radio station about the history of Unix, GNU and Linux. If the author of the article thinks that Free Software has been about money, it's likely he thought Woodstock was all about rain and mud.

https://kikinovak.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/si-linux-metait-c...
mbaehrlxer

Apr 18, 2015
10:15 AM EDT
(i posted this comment on the article site, (waiting for moderation))

how many people contributed to the linux kernel before it was released under the GPL? and how did those numbers grow after the license change? not an objective measure, because i believe the license change coincided with hosting the code on a more public server, but still.

it would be interesting to know the motivations for the individual contributors. maybe you could ask them?

just because linus was looking for a free-drink OS, it doesn't mean that everyone else was too.

i also find you miss the mark by equating the linux kernel with the birth of open-source. not that i want to pedantically claim that the birth of open-source was 1998. nor was it in 1983 with the declaration of stallman. 1983 was the birth of Free Software definition. but if we define open source as a concept that makes source freely available regardless of the motivation then we'd have to look at the first projects that were released under such a license (or as public domain) and for that we'd have to go back as fast as the 50s: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#Free_software_before_the_1980s

of[sic if] there was a birth of open source, it was then. and the motivations where different at that time than they are today.

greetings, eMBee.
buntfu

Apr 18, 2015
1:05 PM EDT
Even if there is a shred of truth to the creation of Linux being about saving money. Bringing it up now in a fashion that puts the importance of it being opensource and all the benefits and accomplishments that have been made because of that decision as a side effect is essentially the same as telling your child that you love dearly that they were an unwanted accident. In otherwords, whats the point?
BernardSwiss

Apr 18, 2015
8:26 PM EDT
"If the author of the article thinks that Free Software has been about money, it's likely he thought Woodstock was all about rain and mud."

{applause}
CFWhitman

Apr 21, 2015
9:28 AM EDT
The author appears to single out the beginning of Linux as the "birth" of open source, which seems entirely arbitrary. Some might claim that "open source" didn't exist until the phrase was coined, and others might say that open source has been around since early researchers first shared code for vacuum tube based computers.

His idea that "the sharing of code was only a secondary consideration" is not really supported by his examples.

His first example is Linux, and he includes a clue as to why this does not support his assertion in the article when he says, "in contrast to Minix, the prevailing Unix-like OS for personal computers before the advent of Linux, Torvalds's new OS was going to be free." Minix was the prevailing Unix-like OS for personal computers with source code available before the advent of Linux. If the source code to Minix had not been available, then it would not have been the subject of the interest of these computer science students. If Linux source code had not been available, it would have been of no interest to anyone. I don't see how it being open source was a "secondary consideration." It was more of a given. It had to be open source or shared source to even be relevant in that environment. Also, it being Free (libre) was closely linked to it being free (gratis).

His other example is summed up in the sentence, "And about how the early hackers who supposedly gave rise to the open source movement had, in the 1970s, happily hacked away on proprietary Unix platforms whose source code was not available to them." This does not even appear to be accurate from any accounts I am familiar with. How do you hack away on something that doesn't have source code available? Gradually, the people who hacked away on Unix polarized on BSD (which always had source code available), while those who wanted to sell Unix software polarized on System V (which started out with source code available, but then gradually changed). Eventually, the people who wanted an open source Unix and those who wanted a closed source one met in court about this issue.

He also says:

"The fact that the proprietary Unixes failed to work well on the cheap personal computers that hit the market circa 1990 was the major impetus for people such as Torvalds to built[sic] a new type of Unix; for them, the issue was keeping Unix affordable by making it work on low-cost computers, not creating open code."

Again this seems like not seeing the forest for the trees. Yes, the issue was keeping Unix affordable by making it work on low-cost computers, but it was a given that they were talking about a hackable, open source Unix. These people were hackers. They weren't even interested in a system for which they did not have source code access. They didn't talk about making the source code available because they didn't need to; anything else wasn't even a consideration. This is like overhearing a meeting at a yacht club of where the group compare notes about their engines and assuming that they're talking about their cars, or at least assuming that whether the engines were for their yachts or their cars was a 'secondary consideration.'
ljmp

Apr 21, 2015
12:47 PM EDT
@mbaehrlxer:

I just would like to point out that:

Public domain is not at all like Open Source.

This does seem to be a point of confusion -- even on github.

Public domain has a problem. Someone can take your work and use it to make money without ever even acknowledging where the source came from... and then use that money making wrapper around your hidden original work to then sue others for infringement. In essence, it's possible that the creator of the original work could be sued for infringement for using his/her own work.

RMS fixed this problem through the GPL. And he is quoted somewhere as indicating that he would have liked to use Public Domain, but couldn't because it's broken in many ways. RMS should be awarded some sort of peace prize for the massive amount of FOSS code that helps computer users worldwide... If it had all been public domain code -- it's very likely the code would have been re-captured by proprietary vendors.

As someone wrote in comment here or elsewhere:

History will remember RMS kindly.
CFWhitman

Apr 21, 2015
3:42 PM EDT
Well, just to be clear, public domain code is considered both Free Software by Richard M. Stallman and Open Source by Eric S. Raymond. However, Richard Stallman certainly considers copyleft software better (in most cases) than public domain or BSD or other permissively licensed Free Software. The Open Source Initiative doesn't seem to be as picky.

I would like to add that copyleft can sometimes be a problem if you have two incompatible copyleft licenses. Then you can end up creating a lot of open source code that can't be used together. So do everyone a favor and, if you want to make your software copyleft, use the GPL or a GPL compatible license.
ljmp

Apr 21, 2015
4:04 PM EDT
RMS position on Public Domain software, by RMS:

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/public-domain-manifesto

RMS wrote: The Public Domain Manifesto tries to defend our freedom within the walled garden of the public domain, but abandons that freedom outside it. This is not enough.


This quote is clearly a reference to what some detractors say is the "Viral Nature of the GPL." And would seem to be why RMS created the GPL rather than just release GNU as Public Domain... the viral nature is the desired effect, without which much of what is called 'open source' would not exist today.

Unlike many of my peers, I do not believe the need for or time of the GPL is over. There is, perhaps, a more urgent need to develop more GPL code than previously. Licensing multi-author code under the GPL or another strong copyleft license is really the only way to ensure that the code is free for a significant amount of time -- free as in beer and freedom.
CFWhitman

Apr 21, 2015
4:35 PM EDT
I want to make it clear that I agree with ljmp, and I'm confident that Richard Stallman would agree with his last comment as well.

I just wanted to include these references about public domain software code:

gnu.org wrote:Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL.


Open Source Initiative wrote:There are certain circumstances, such as with U.S. government works as described above, where it is not easy to apply a license, and the software must be released into the public domain. In these cases, while it would be inaccurate to display the OSI logo or say that the license is OSI-approved (since there is no license), nevertheless we think it is accurate to say that such software is effectively open source, or open source for most practical purposes, even though it is not officially released under an open source license. (This is assuming, of course, that in the laws of releasing jurisdiction the meaning of "public domain" is compatible with the Open Source Definition.) After all, the freedoms guaranteed by open source licenses are still present, and it is possible for the familiar dynamics of open source collaboration to arise around the software.


Public domain software source code* is not considered ideal by any Free Software or Open Source proponents, but it is still Free and open source and thus a lot better than proprietary software.

* It's important that the software be available in source code form. It is possible for binary code to end up in the public domain without source available, and then it is not Free or open source.
BernardSwiss

Apr 21, 2015
5:48 PM EDT
I came to add my own snide remarks to the inevitable $@&! storm -- and found an intelligent, informative, on-topic discussion, instead.

I am so disappointed :(

(good job, guys!)
skelband

Apr 21, 2015
8:07 PM EDT
I would like to point out that if copyright terms were anywhere near reasonable, a metric s*it load of software would be in the public domain already.
ljmp

Apr 21, 2015
8:12 PM EDT
@skelband:

I suppose this the appropriate cue to point people over to the "What would have been public domain as of Jan 1, 2015"

http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2015/pre-1976

I'm not sure much normal user software would have qualified in the US...

I suppose my statement supposes that the previous copyright law was OK.
CFWhitman

Apr 22, 2015
9:38 AM EDT
I actually would be fairly satisfied with an adjustment back to the length of copyright in the Copyright Act of 1909 at this point, which would make works from 1958 become public domain this year. It's true, however, that the original length according to U.S. copyright law was 14 years with a 14 year extension available so works from 1986 would become public domain this year. (In between there was a time when it was 28 years with 14 year extension, which would make works from 1972 become public domain this year.)

It's quite obvious, however, that the current copyright law is in an entirely different spirit than the original copyright law. The terms of the original law allowed a lot of things that were first published in a person's lifetime to become public domain before that person's death. Now, with a few odd exceptions, there is virtually no chance of something published in your lifetime becoming public domain during your lifetime. That is a huge difference.
mbaehrlxer

Apr 22, 2015
8:37 PM EDT
about problems of releasing work as public domain
ljmp wrote:it's possible that the creator of the original work could be sued for infringement for using his/her own work.


really, is the US law that broken? surely if i can prove that i wrote the original code, regardless of how i released it, that should protect me.

don't quote old examples from before the acceptance of the berne convention without which copyright was not assigned automatically. that was indeed a cause for absurd cases, given some stories i read.

greetings, eMBee.
jdixon

Apr 23, 2015
2:29 AM EDT
> ...really, is the US law that broken?

Yes and no. Anyone with the money could high a lawyer to write a letter threatening to sue, and could probably even file the paperwork with the court. But the odds are the court would throw the case out as being without merit in the pretrial stage.
ljmp

Apr 23, 2015
10:57 AM EDT
@mbaehrlxer:

IANAL: But...

I would suppose that even under the current automatic copyright procedure that the burden of proof for both prior work under automatic copyright and violation of that automatic copyright would lie with the defendant. In my hypothetical situation the defendant is the original author -- so the example would go something like:
  1. Code author releases in Public Domain -> PD code is incorporated in proprietary code base
  2. Proprietary vendor copyrights and/or patents binary code
  3. Proprietary Code is in compiled binary form -> Original author needs source code from vendor to prove case
  4. Defendants case would revolve around a particular judge allowing a particular defendant to view Proprietary code base
So, since the burden of proof is on the defendant - and - because it most likely would be hard to get the source code to establish proof - and - because courts/lawyers are expensive... the case would most likely be settled out of court with the Proprietary vendor picking up a modest fee, a take down notice, and a possibility of a large/r market share of whatever the code provides.

EDIT: Still thinking this one through... Perhaps my example is poor or wrongly conceived...

I suppose the problem lies in the fact that there are many different coding ways to get the same result... But I also suppose if some piece of code is Public Domain, than no one can sue you for using it... but perhaps, a vendor can get the code removed from the Public Domain through some type of patent assertion or something like that.

I guess my point is: Public Domain status is open to interpretation, revision, and later removal from Public Domain perhaps without the original author's knowledge or permission. However, code with an OSS license is not freely interpreted unless the copyright holder/s say so by unanimously changing the license.
CFWhitman

Apr 23, 2015
4:47 PM EDT
IANAL, either

Well, it's possible that someone could get sued by anyone, but that doesn't mean the case would hold up.

In the US, you theoretically can't be successfully sued for copyright infringement for using your own work (that you did not write under contract). However, it may be possible for someone to fool a jury into believing that the work involved is not your own (or perhaps that you wrote it under contract). So, no, US Copyright Law is not that broken, but all man made laws can be abused by the unscrupulous.

Now being sued for a patent is a different thing altogether. Public domain and copyright have very little to do with patents. If someone successfully registers a patent that was implemented by your code after they copied it, then they could sue you, but it should theoretically be easy to prove that your code predates their patent application and the patent is therefore invalid (without ever needing to prove that you wrote the code as long as you can prove it predates their patent).

Of course in the wacky world of software patents no implementation is needed to get a patent (which goes completely against the original intent of patents). So someone can create a patent on something that they have never made work and then wait for someone to actually make it work and then sue them for patent infringement when they do. That's part of the reason there is an outcry for patent reform.
penguinist

Apr 23, 2015
5:57 PM EDT
Here in the US you can be sued for anything, whether you have guilt or not.

A judge will not look kindly, however, on a frivolous suit, so attorneys who want to protect their reputations are likely not to cooperate with clients who wish to bring such suits.

Note: the exception to this statement is with patent trolls, those attorneys have no honorable reputation to protect.
JaseP

Apr 23, 2015
8:11 PM EDT
Quoting: Note: the exception to this statement is with patent trolls, those attorneys have no honorable reputation to protect.


Neither do the judges... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/top-us-patent-jud...

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]

Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!