Stallman’s Law

Re:Stallman’s Law by misrepresent on Monday November 28, 2016 @01:54AM (#13053865)

Look, he used a bullshit argument. One guy says, (paraphrasing) [open source has many advantages]. The next guy replies by quoting the opensource.org website as though that's the only definition available. A citation for a strawman doesn't make it valid.

I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular. Regardless, assuming the original intention was as you claim, that doesn't mean everyone who uses that term now shares that view.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stallman’s Law by comex on Monday November 28, 2016 @01:58AM (#13053886)

> I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular.

Perhaps you should read the site in question rather than guessing.

https://opensource.org/history

> The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code. [..] The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label "free software." Brainstorming for this new label eventually converged on the term "open source", originally suggested by Christine Peterson.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stallman’s Law by sedachv on Monday November 28, 2016 @02:29AM (#13053975)

In reply to user misrepresent, who seems to have signed up to HN just to attack RMS:

Wrong.

"Revision 1.29 February 9 1998 esr Changed ``free software'' to ``open source''. "

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stallman’s Law by misrepresent on Monday November 28, 2016 @03:07AM (#13054088)

I haven't attacked anyone, and I haven't even mentioned RMS until now. That's a very weird accusation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stallman’s Law by cyphar on Tuesday November 29, 2016 @12:19AM (#13061021)

While claiming that referencing first-hand sources from both sides of the aisle as a "bullshit argument" isn't attacking anyone, you're not contributing to a healthy discussion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stallman’s Law by misrepresent on Monday November 28, 2016 @02:18AM (#13053939)

And yet, if I look at:

    https://archive.org/stream/CathedralAndTheBazaar/cathedral-bazaar_djvu.txt

I see that Eric Raymond used the term on November 18th 1997. Wanna place a bet that I can't find an earlier use than that? Perhaps you shouldn't trust everything you read as definitive...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stallman’s Law by misrepresent on Monday November 28, 2016 @03:05AM (#13054083)

Well, it looks like I was wrong about the origin of the term. I misread Eric Raymond's changelog, and after a half hour of searching I can't find an earlier use. (I wish there was a usable search for old usenet postings...)

Anything else I said still stands though - including that it's foolish to try and paint everyone with the same brush.

[ Parent | on HN ]