Open Source Explained In Lego
youtube.com
youtube.com
Nice presentation though.
But then I would also have to point out that software freedom isn't some great revelation that came to Dr. Stallman and started with him alone. Free software existed before the movement. Considering that, would you really have Stallman's idea of Free Software without what came before?
Maybe you would. But in any case I find it wrong to portray Stallman as the father of it all, let alone as the father of Open Source.
> “An article mentioned that I was the father of the open source software. I wrote back to the editor that if it were to be true, then the child that was conceived (open source) was a product of artificial insemination with sperms stolen from me without my knowledge and consent”. [0]
In any case, I don't think RMS would claim that he is the "father" of free software either, in the sense that he believes that software is inherently free. He may have been the father of a particular political movement (and organization) that advocates for this freedom, but saying that RMS "created" free software would be like saying that Martin Luther King, Jr.[1] "created" racial equality.
[0] Taken from http://linux4sanmukh.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/what-i-learnt-... , though he's been saying this in his talks for years
This is not true. As I note above, the OSI's definition of "Open Source"[0] and FSF's definition of "free software" are equivalent in practice; they are simply backed by different motivating ideologies.
The entirety of Android is neither Open Source nor free (as in freedom), but individual components are. The portions of Android that are free (as in freedom) are also Open Source, and vice versa.
The "Open Source definition"[0], according to the OSI, is essentially equivalent to the four freedoms of software (posited by the FSF). One might be able to find a pathological edge case that satisfies one and not the other, but in practice, they're literally the same thing (differing only in the motivating ideology).
It is truly aggravating to what lengths some people will go to avoid using these words, as if they are some deeply offensive racial slurs.
Especially considering they specifically mention Richard Stallman as the founder of it all, which is just a total slap in the face to his ideas.
"Predatory" is actually a relatively accurate term, but it's the first time I've seen it used. We've already agreed on the vernacular: proprietary.
Open source is a purely pragmatic issue and does not offer any moral and ethical guidelines concerning freedom in of itself. Something can still be open source yet proprietary (or "predatory") at the same time, as in Microsoft's shared source models, or GitHub's Atom editor.
I'm very disappointed. This video was basically explaining the concepts of free software throughout the whole time, but for some inexplicable reason chose to stay away from addressing the proper terminology. Is it because "open source" is more marketable? Some hipster herd mentality? A revulsion towards the FSF?
It would have been great if they contrasted "free" with "gratis", but alas. I guess at this point free software has been too deeply whitewashed. I wonder if RMS will repeat himself for the umpteenth time over this?
Could have been more, but hey, I guess it's better than nothing.
Someone could say the same of free software. Who in your opinion has the authority to define terms?
Is it because "open source" is more marketable?
Could be. But since the video talks about more than just software, I find open source somewhat more fitting. Yes, it still refers to source code and therefore software. On the other hand, it's easy to take it as to referring to blueprints, recipes, etc.
The free/libre model extends far beyond software, although it is primarily applied there.
> Something can still be open source yet proprietary (or "predatory") at the same time, as in Microsoft's shared source models, or GitHub's Atom editor.
Actually, according to the Open Source Initiative, Github's Atom editor is not open source; nor are Microsoft's "shared source" licenses[0][1]. (Amusingly, the definition of "Open Source" is almost exactly the same as the "Four freedoms of software" - the only difference is the ideology that is used to support it.)
That aside, I agree - this video made me cringe.
It's one thing to use the term "Open Source" in the rest of the video, but if they agree that "it all started" with "a guy named Richard Stallman", not even mentioning the words "free software" is rather disgraceful. While RMS respects the end goals[2] of the Open Source movement, he very strongly and very vocally opposes their principles.
It's like calling Malcolm X a supporter of Martin Luther King, Jr and the 1963 march on Washington[3]. In some sense, they stood for some of the same things, but Malcolm X would be rolling over in his grave if you said that[4].
> A revulsion towards the FSF?
It's more specifically a revulsion towards Richard Stallman, I believe. As evidenced by the comments on almost any Hacker News post mentioning FOSS. there are a lot of people who direct very personal dislike towards him, and then project that onto "free software" at large.
[1] http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/9
[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Jobs_a...
[4] As noted in the FSF essay linked to above, the main difference in this analogy is that the FSF and OSI agree on the end result, but not the means, whereas most political groups that disagree (esp. in the 1960s) disagree about the actual end goal as well.