Nice presentation though.
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).