# Does free software exist before the FSF with the BSD license?



## RodrigoBSD (Oct 17, 2019)

You could say that it was the University of Berkeley with its BSD license and the operating system of the same name that indirectly created free software or not? I ask because BSD was created in 1977 and GNU in 1983, later in 1985 the FSF but they were the ones who created the concept of free software as well as the 4 freedoms, if I know that they have no authority to say that it is or not It is free software but the definition and 4 freedoms were created by them and it is said that the father of free software is Richard Stallman. Even so, aside from that we could say that free software already existed with BSD (although perhaps it was not recognized as such)?


----------



## rigoletto@ (Oct 17, 2019)

In the very early beginning  hadn't ever software licenses, the code just flew from one hand to another. Later the licenses appeared (when the thing become commercial) but when you bought a software at that time you got the source code together[1].

What Richard Stall invented[2] was a communist way to distribute software. In his ideology everyone *must* be allowed to put the hands and do wherever they want with any source code, regardless the author will. The copyleft licenses are called viral but IMO they are in fact more like parasitic.

The objective of those licenses is not actual free software but to lock other people's code to that *ideology*.

[1] if I record correctly Microsoft was the one invented to sell software in binary form only.
[2] this is my personal opinion


----------



## xtremae (Oct 17, 2019)

RodrigoBSD said:


> You could say that it was the University of Berkeley with its BSD license and the operating system of the same name that indirectly created free software or not?


Not.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Oct 17, 2019)

It becomes really fun when different components have different licences. For instance the linux kernel & the ZFS filesystem ...


----------



## Beastie7 (Oct 17, 2019)

The whole concept of distributing source code existed long before GNU/FSF; it was just exclusive amongst universities. Stallman just took the idea, and made it coercive.


----------



## ralphbsz (Oct 17, 2019)

RodrigoBSD said:


> You could say that it was the University of Berkeley with its BSD license and the operating system of the same name that indirectly created free software or not?


The original BSD (before about the middle 90s) was not at all free. It could not be distributed without the user also getting an AT&T / Bell Labs license for the underlying Unix.

And until the early 90s, nobody thought about the concept of free software. Some software was commercial and sold. Some required filling out license paperwork, but didn't require payment. Other software was intended to be freely shareable. People did not make a big deal about that. I started using computers in the late 70s, and back then there was lots of software that was intended to be freely distributed.



rigoletto@ said:


> In the very early beginning  hadn't ever software licenses, the code just flew from one hand to another. Later the licenses appeared (when the thing become commercial) but when you bought a software at that time you got the source code together[1].


Commercial software, with interestingly complex licenses, has existed since at least the 1950s. Free software, with an explicit license that says "copyright by X, feel free to distribute this freely" has existed at least since the 60s.



> [1] if I record correctly Microsoft was the one invented to sell software in binary form only.



No, that existed long before Microsoft. While a lot of software in the 50s and 60s was distributed together with the source code, there was also lots of software long before microsoft that was also distributed only in binary form. For example, most mainframe software other than the OS was NOT shipped with source code; for a long time, operating systems did ship with source code though.



Beastie7 said:


> The whole concept of distributing source code existed long before GNU/FSF; it was just exclusive amongst universities. Stallman just took the idea, and made it coercive.


Long before universities, software was distributed among user groups. The largest ones were SHARE (for IBM mainframes) and DECUS (for Digital Equipment a.k.a. DEC minicomputers). They used to distribute lots of software among group members; DECUS for example started sending tapes with "free" software (meaning freely distributable, licensed to members of the group) in the late 60s or early 70s. Among IBM mainframe users the sharing was even more intense; they would take large parts of the installed base (including OS changes, like major changes to the batch system) and share it among each other.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Oct 17, 2019)

ralphbsz said:


> Commercial software, with interestingly complex licenses, has existed since at least the 1950s. Free software, with an explicit license that says "copyright by X, feel free to distribute this freely" has existed at least since the 60s.



By "in the very early beginning" I mean really in the beginning. I don't think Ada's Lovelace logical work to the Babbage's "Analytical Engine" had a license.


----------



## RodrigoBSD (Oct 18, 2019)

rigoletto@ said:


> In the very early beginning  hadn't ever software licenses, the code just flew from one hand to another. Later the licenses appeared (when the thing become commercial) but when you bought a software at that time you got the source code together[1].
> 
> What Richard Stall invented[2] was a communist way to distribute software. In his ideology everyone *must* be allowed to put the hands and do wherever they want with any source code, regardless the author will. The copyleft licenses are called viral but IMO they are in fact more like parasitic.
> 
> ...


Personally I have nothing against the GPL, LGPL (of the GNU licenses this is the least attractive), AGPL or the GFDL in fact for me they are good licenses that I like and I would have no problems using them in any program that I program .

Just kidding, licenses with copyleft are very disgusting especially those of GNU / FSF, if I had to use a license I would choose between MIT, 2-clause BSD or ISC.


----------



## Crivens (Oct 18, 2019)

rigoletto@ said:


> By "in the very early beginning" I mean really in the beginning. I don't think Ada's Lovelace logical work to the Babbage's "Analytical Engine" had a license.


Only because no lawyer saw any money in it.
Otherwise even fire would come with a licence.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Oct 18, 2019)

RodrigoBSD said:


> Personally I have nothing against the GPL, LGPL (of the GNU licenses this is the least attractive), AGPL or the GFDL in fact for me they are good licenses that I like and I would have no problems using them in any program that I program .



The license choice is a matter of objective. The one which suits you more for that particular work.


----------



## RodrigoBSD (Dec 1, 2019)

rigoletto@ said:


> The license choice is a matter of objective. The one which suits you more for that particular work.


I was just saying joking man hahaha, never use a license with copyleft since, let's face it are disgusting licenses neither more nor less and the more you read on the GNU page that allows you or not to do each of your licenses more disgusting gives what They say, maybe the user gains freedom but the one who programs the software does not.

I responded late just because I hadn't entered the page in a while haha.


----------



## RodrigoBSD (Dec 1, 2019)

ralphbsz said:


> The original BSD (before about the middle 90s) was not at all free. It could not be distributed without the user also getting an AT&T / Bell Labs license for the underlying Unix.
> 
> And until the early 90s, nobody thought about the concept of free software. Some software was commercial and sold. Some required filling out license paperwork, but didn't require payment. Other software was intended to be freely shareable. People did not make a big deal about that. I started using computers in the late 70s, and back then there was lots of software that was intended to be freely distributed.
> 
> ...


I know that BSD was not an open source and open source software operating system but I mentioned it because of the license that used the BSD 4-clause license.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Dec 1, 2019)

GPL make a lot for sense for some specific Academic projects, also I like CDDL to avoid a project becoming carnival of licenses.

*[EDIT]*

The Muen kernel is also GPL but that has a company behind it (and not the typical drunk kids GPL mess), and if you need it for commercial purposes (not GPL licensed) I am sure Codelabs would be glad to sell a different license for you.


----------



## RodrigoBSD (Dec 1, 2019)

rigoletto@ said:


> GPL make a lot for sense for some specific Academic projects, also I like CDDL to avoid a project becoming carnival of licenses.
> 
> *[EDIT]*
> 
> The Muen kernel is also GPL but that has a company behind it (and not the typical drunk kids GPL mess), and if you need it for commercial purposes (not GPL licensed) I am sure Codelabs would be glad to sell a different license for you.


The truth is that it does not bother me a little that someone took a project of mine (not yet because I did not do any) and privatized it because I am in favor of total freedom and the licenses I would use would be with that intention, total freedom although that It does not mean that you do not defend me and let me go over it, it is possible to say and although the MIT / BSD / ISC licenses have restrictions they are almost totally free, what I do not like in the public domain and if I like some licenses, they say that the software is delivered as it is in addition to the disclaimer bone protect the developer and is as it should be, because the developer is not to blame for some idiocy that makes a user with the software that developed.


----------

