I have proven conclusively [hyperlogos.org] that you did not coin the term "Open Source" as pertains to software; not even the term Open Source Software is your creation. Ransom Love's corporation Caldera (which was later taken over by others, becoming The SCO Group) was actually using the phrase in press releases in 1995, but I (and others) who were in the scene at the time remember well using the phrase before Caldera did so. So why do you continue making these false claims? Is it simply for your own self-aggrandizement,
That you're a liar! Even Caldera describes their [one] press release [that's from 1996, and not from 1995 as you erroneously claim], as "pre-internet" -- so, it's basically the text of a fax -- and it was clearly just code-viewable software that remained horrifically proprietary. (No geeks could touch it, no geeks could ever redistribute it.) For that reason even that one time they were only using the phrase "open source code model" (that you couldn't touch or modify or
That is awfully harsh. If you actually read the blog, he says the press release is from 1996. Did you even read the press release? A snippet:
Individuals can use OpenDOS source for personal use at no cost.
Individuals and organizations desiring to commercially redistribute
Caldera OpenDOS must acquire a license with an associated small fee.
Source code for proprietary third-party components of Novell DOS 7
will not be published.
Why are you saying that no geeks could touch it, or redistribut
The whole point of Open Source software is you can modify it. You couldn't (and can't) modify this so-called "OpenDOS." And (as you acknowledge) you even had to pay Caldera if you wanted to pass on copies of that (un-modified) code.
Actually the whole point of Free Software is that you can use, modify it and redistribute it with the rights still intact. The term "Open Source" has many meanings.
Actually the whole point of Free Software is that you can use, modify it and redistribute it with the rights still intact. The term "Open Source" has many meanings.
Thank you for understanding this. Free Software and Open Source are fundamentally different things, and I believe that the OSI's ongoing attempts to conflate them when they know better are harmful to users both in the short and the long term. They like to claim that Open Source is sufficient, but that's simply doing the will of corporations rather than actually serving the needs of users. Settling for Open Source when what users need is Free Software is the white flag of surrender. We need integrity and courage, not lies and cowardice. We can't win by giving up.
We are on the same page here. I am completely against the idea of Open Source, and support Free Software. It is the meaninglessness of the term "Open Source" that has got us into this complete mess we are in today. Computing has regressed. It used to be about empowerment of the individual. Open Source is just a meaningless marketing term. We should have been fighting to Free Software all along. Too bad OSI has obfuscated what is important.
Why do you continue making this erroneous claim? (Score:0, Troll)
I have proven conclusively [hyperlogos.org] that you did not coin the term "Open Source" as pertains to software; not even the term Open Source Software is your creation. Ransom Love's corporation Caldera (which was later taken over by others, becoming The SCO Group) was actually using the phrase in press releases in 1995, but I (and others) who were in the scene at the time remember well using the phrase before Caldera did so. So why do you continue making these false claims? Is it simply for your own self-aggrandizement,
Re: (Score:-1, Redundant)
That you're a liar! Even Caldera describes their [one] press release [that's from 1996, and not from 1995 as you erroneously claim], as "pre-internet" -- so, it's basically the text of a fax -- and it was clearly just code-viewable software that remained horrifically proprietary. (No geeks could touch it, no geeks could ever redistribute it.) For that reason even that one time they were only using the phrase "open source code model" (that you couldn't touch or modify or
Re: (Score:0)
Individuals can use OpenDOS source for personal use at no cost. Individuals and organizations desiring to commercially redistribute Caldera OpenDOS must acquire a license with an associated small fee. Source code for proprietary third-party components of Novell DOS 7 will not be published.
Why are you saying that no geeks could touch it, or redistribut
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why do you continue making this erroneous claim (Score:0, Troll)
Actually the whole point of Free Software is that you can use, modify it and redistribute it with the rights still intact. The term "Open Source" has many meanings.
Thank you for understanding this. Free Software and Open Source are fundamentally different things, and I believe that the OSI's ongoing attempts to conflate them when they know better are harmful to users both in the short and the long term. They like to claim that Open Source is sufficient, but that's simply doing the will of corporations rather than actually serving the needs of users. Settling for Open Source when what users need is Free Software is the white flag of surrender. We need integrity and courage, not lies and cowardice. We can't win by giving up.
Re: (Score:1)