Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on April 16, 2006 09:26 PM
That may be your interpretation, but the person who actually started the Free Software movement (created the GPL, started the Free Software Foundation, wrote the first Free software) did it to protect four specific freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
(<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html" title="gnu.org">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a gnu.org>)
This extra access might be a nice side effect, but it has nothing to do with the historical reasons we call it Free software. Open source didn't come until later. If you call a Free software package "Open Source," (or vice versa, you'd best check with the actual developers) you're getting into revisionist history.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
That's not accurate, check recent history.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 16, 2006 09:26 PM(<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html" title="gnu.org">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a gnu.org>)
This extra access might be a nice side effect, but it has nothing to do with the historical reasons we call it Free software. Open source didn't come until later. If you call a Free software package "Open Source," (or vice versa, you'd best check with the actual developers) you're getting into revisionist history.
#