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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.