

Open Source Explained In Lego - neilpeel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8fHgx9mE5U

======
clarry
So Dr. Stallman is behind Open Source. Right.

Nice presentation though.

~~~
pekk
I think Stallman will argue that Open Source co-opted ideas from the Free
Software movement. If that's true then you don't really have "Open Source"
without Stallman's Free Software ideas.

~~~
clarry
I could agree with that line of reasoning.

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.

~~~
chimeracoder
In RMS's own words:

> “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-...](http://linux4sanmukh.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/what-i-learnt-from-
stallman/) , though he's been saying this in his talks for years

------
rvlt
Great work guys, it's cool you used lego and great work explaining open
source.

------
vezzy-fnord
It was a decent video, but I simply couldn't help but feel like screaming
"Just say the words 'free software' and 'proprietary', for fuck's sake!"

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.

~~~
clarry
_Open source is a purely pragmatic issue and does not offer any moral and
ethical guidelines concerning freedom in of itself._

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.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Free software is inherently concerned with freedom and community. Whoever your
hypothetical "someone" is, they are wrong.

The free/libre model extends far beyond software, although it is primarily
applied there.

~~~
clarry
Free software is not "inherently" anything specific. Free software as defined
by the FSF might be what you said. But someone else might think free software
means nothing besides that you can download it free of charge.

