Comments on: Patents Roundup: Microsoft, Free Software Innovations and Impending Changes to Patent Law http://techrights.org/2008/11/12/innovations-and-impending-changes/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Gentoo User http://techrights.org/2008/11/12/innovations-and-impending-changes/comment-page-1/#comment-35136 Gentoo User Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:37:20 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/12/innovations-and-impending-changes/#comment-35136 No, "free software" as the definition you are likely referring to about does NOT predate commercial software. Sharing code freely was a common thing in the early days of computing, especially within academia, because software was just a means to and end. Hardware was extremely expensive and it was shared among multiple users, who saw software as nothing more than a commodity. If anything, software was largely in the public domain. And the commercialization of software also predates anything Bill Gates ever did, your desire to blame the death of a non-existent "free software" movement on him notwithstanding. Unix had been commercialized long before Microsoft ever became relevant. Why are people like you so desperate to fit *that* kind of free sharing into the GNU/FSF/RMS definition, which came much later? Why do you make these false assertions and present them as fact? Also, ESR wouldn't be caught dead talking about "free software", as you know very well. He's talking about open source. After years of banging on the "free != open" and "you must call it GNU/Linux like Stallman says" are you now using an ESR blurb to make a point on your blog? That's disingenuous at best. <font color="#ff0000"><b>Note</b>: comment arrived from a <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/19/troll-linux-identity-deception/" rel="nofollow">witch hunter that does not even use GNU/Linux</a>.</font> No, “free software” as the definition you are likely referring to about does NOT predate commercial software. Sharing code freely was a common thing in the early days of computing, especially within academia, because software was just a means to and end. Hardware was extremely expensive and it was shared among multiple users, who saw software as nothing more than a commodity. If anything, software was largely in the public domain.

And the commercialization of software also predates anything Bill Gates ever did, your desire to blame the death of a non-existent “free software” movement on him notwithstanding. Unix had been commercialized long before Microsoft ever became relevant.

Why are people like you so desperate to fit *that* kind of free sharing into the GNU/FSF/RMS definition, which came much later?

Why do you make these false assertions and present them as fact?

Also, ESR wouldn’t be caught dead talking about “free software”, as you know very well. He’s talking about open source. After years of banging on the “free != open” and “you must call it GNU/Linux like Stallman says” are you now using an ESR blurb to make a point on your blog? That’s disingenuous at best.

Note: comment arrived from a witch hunter that does not even use GNU/Linux.

]]>