by benwerd on 6/14/25, 3:49 PM with 23 comments
by margarina72 on 6/14/25, 4:44 PM
True of democracy, True in the business-world, True in religion, True in philosophy... People are not code, so open source can define a licence but when people are interacting with each other, there will always be problematic people.
by kazinator on 6/14/25, 4:43 PM
More nuance: firstly, there is a story, which may be urban legend, that Thompson and Ritchie secretly gave source code to user groups, by leaving tapes in a predetermined outdoors location to be picked up.
That set aside, AT&T was operating under a some kind of consent decree from 1956 which prevented them from entering the computer business. Which means that Unix couldn't be sold as a product. This is why they distributed it for just cost.
When they got out of that decree, that's when they started to view Unix as a business asset.
by jrm4 on 6/14/25, 7:39 PM
It would be fine if the focus of the article were openly merely "what exactly do the words 'Open-Source' mean and how does it compare to other concepts like 'Free Software,'" but by going bigger, I think the author just about misses everything.
The hit-job on Stallman doesn't help either; love or hate his problematic statements, author does everyone a disservice by not noticing how profound his ideas on software are.
by kazinator on 6/14/25, 4:47 PM
Am I off the mark in thinking that this really doesn't belong here and detracts from the article?