History of FOSS and stuff

Ben Scott dragonhawk at gmail.com
Fri Apr 4 15:57:06 EDT 2008


On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 9:28 AM, David J Berube
<djberube at berubeconsulting.com> wrote:
>  He certainly didn't invent OSS, but he certainly invented the concept of
>  "free software" as he and similar advocates use it - the F in FOSS.

  Well, that depends on who you ask.  According to RMS, sure.  But I
don't agree.

  The ideas and concepts behind Free Software predate the GPL, the
FSF, and RMS's activism.  Indeed, they were there from the start.
Software was often Free, in the beginning.  It was delivered with
source code, and you were Free to modify it and redistribute it.  The
idea of turning software into a profit center by restricting the
rights of others came later.

  What RMS did was take these ideas and formally codify them.  He
constructed the GPL to give them legal protection.  Before, they were
just assumed -- and we all know about assumptions.  So what he did was
critical.  But he did not invent.  He innovated.  (Innovation counts,
too.)

> It's based on previous concepts, but his particular notion of it, whether you
> agree with it or not, is definitely his ...

  What a very proprietary way of thinking about it.  The similarity to
the sentiment expressed in the above, to the current debate on
software patents, is rather ironic.  It almost sounds as if you are
suggesting RMS holds the patent on the idea of Free Software.  To
continue that analogy: RMS didn't invent Free Software.  He was just
the first to file a patent on it.

  I don't mean to diminish RMS's work.  He's contributions have been
major, both technically and politically.  The GPL is very well crafted
to protect the rights of others to modify and redistribute software.
The FSF does great work, and creating it and keeping it alive was and
is no small feat.  I haven't seen any solid information on how much
source code he has contributed, but I'm sure "a lot" is a massive
understatement.

  But RMS also appears to have a tendency to, shall we say, dislike it
when he is not the center of attention.  As I understand it, one of
RMS's objections to the BSD license was the so-called "advertising
clause".  So the GPL intentionally does not require others to give
credit.  That was fine when the FSF was benefiting.  But when Linux
became the new poster child for FOSS, RMS became quite irate that GNU
was no longer in the spotlight.  I find that both petty and
hypocritial.

  Free Software means one is free to use, study, modify, and
redistribute the software.  That means it is free from RMS's control,
too.  If he didn't want that, he should have gone to work for
Symbolics.

-- Ben


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list