I was doing some research this morning (if you can call reading Wikipedia, research) and came across something called the IBM Type-III Library. This was a library of programs created by IBM’s employees and customers and made available in source code form to anyone who could run them (i.e. anyone who had access to IBM hardware, I’m guessing.)
What is free software? The Free Software Foundation defines it thus:
- 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 (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
From what I can tell, the Type-III library was available with the freedoms listed above.
What I found most interesting was that an early IBM Operating System, CP/CMS, was released as a Type-III product and that, apparently, a user community grew up around it that would be familiar to anyone experienced with free software development today (including a fork!) The articles on Wikipedia do point out that the subject is “murky” as much of it is either undocumented or, where officially documented, said documentation is contradictory. This might be more a function of Wikipedia than anything else!
So, what, if anything, does this mean? Let’s list some caveats first:
- I might have misunderstood what I have been reading.
- It comes from Wikipedia, therefore, is less than credible.
- It only lasted as official IBM policy for a brief span in the seventies.
- The software was simply public domain and therefore had no forward going “freedom” as described in the GPL (for example)
I think the weakest statement that can be made is that, for a time, there was a group of programmers studying, modifying, and sharing IBM code in production environments and that this was officially considered a “good thing” by IBM. As such, it is fair to say that the dynamic of Free Software development emerged from within this community (and possibly others of which I am not aware.) The stronger hypothesis would be that the philosophy of Free Software was present in this community, at the very least, in embryonic form. I haven’t done enough research to make such an assertion.
This isn’t intended as a “gotcha” for open source advocates. It would have been a pretty poor one! However, it does stand as a reminder that the reality of a thing is complex and nuanced. Whenever I find myself debating a strong open source advocate (strong as in wholly committed), I am reminded of trying to convince a fundamentalist (Christian in this case but it applies to any fundamentalist) that the construction of the Bible was as Byzantine as the city in which it took place! I understand that the idea that Free Software might have first come into existence (in content if not in form) under the official auspices of (“the evil corporation”) IBM is anathema to a large percentage of today’s Open Source proponents and I am sure they would debate me furiously about daring to question the Deus Ex Machina purity of “Free Software” but, wherever there is dogma so there also shall be doubt. It’s called science and it works… eventually.
Free software was actually the way that software began. I think if you are debating anyone about the origins of “Free Software” you’d have to really understand that in the beginning – all software was freely shared (think ARPANET days here) – so that a better system could be made.
That’s the origin of “Free Software” and its freedoms. The lock down of proprietary software was such that it denies the freedoms to modify and work on code. In other words, you couldn’t customise code for your environment – that wasn’t allowed.
Just a slight point that needs to be made though: there are as many proprietary fundamentalists as there are free software fundamentalists. There is no exclusivity within a group that differs from your viewpoint – unwillingness to budge is equal across many sets of people – or else all conflicts would be resolved peacefully and no wars (religious or otherwise) would ever occur.
The point? Don’t broad brush a group of people who differ with your views – it is a non-starter and a weakness (IMHO).
I am a free software proponent, but I don’t care what you choose, as long as you don’t try to tell me what I can choose, use , develop, modify, do, think, or say about it. All of those things are my freedoms as they are rightfully yours.
I think the dividing line is when someone says: “You can’t do that.”
As long as no one is causing you harm (trying to deny your rights or the rights of others) – then it does not effect you. It’s only when someone steps across the line of saying – you “have to do it this way” that rights are being trampled.
Certainly there are things we must all not do and all agree upon. Denying the basic rights of others is one of those things. So I ask the one question that I ask anyone who labels: Do you really feel that the person you labeled as “X” is all that different from you? Are their lives any less valuable than yours?
If you do, end of conversation. We’ve reached a fundamental disagreement.
If not, then maybe (just maybe) you can take a reasoned view of the entire picture and realise that the self is not the only person involved. If a person isn’t out to cause you harm, then there should be no issue with them choosing to do something you disagree with – it doesn’t effect you.
I hope that perhaps, with time, people will learn that there is no dichotomy of people – but rather a choice that people make on their own. The choice to broad-brush whole sections of people based on a product decision is as asinine as it is infantile. You might as well tell those who drink Pepsi that they are wrong and only Coke has any value as a soft drink.
It makes no sense to debate a choice. It’s an individual right, not a societal edict.
Great points, Chuck. I let that post out into the wild “scarce half made up”. I really should have added the disclosure that I am actually an OS supporter! I run Fedora Core on my desktops and OpenBSD on my servers! My IDE’s affix the MIT License by default to all my source. My issue, and I should have made this clearer, is with fundamentalism. I feel the burden is on OS advocates, however, to acknowledge that there is an ideology at work in the OS community that is akin to a fundamentalism. I often encounter non-falsifiable statements made by OS advocates that run along lines like “OS is always secure; hence, the better choice”. Note that the statement is not “OS is more secure” or “OS has a tendency toward being more secure”, just the religious pronouncement that “OS is *always* secure”. That is one example, there are, of course, many others. I believe that “burden” lies more on the OS community because it makes claims to being the more rational approach to software development. Perhaps it is; however, if rationality is the measure then its application must be thorough-going and dogmatism of this kind needs to be critically exposed and expunged – it is ultimately harmful to the Open Source movement. Apart from that, all I can say is Emacs is *always* the wrong choice!
I think you could well be on to something, but like Christianity, you don’ have unbiased documentation or historians to tell the story, everybody is biased and passionately biased.
I always thought the opensource shtick came from Stallman and the MIT gang but what do I know!
I think you have to push this further and ask, and what, pray tell, did IBM do all this freeness stuff *for*? And the answer is: to get enthusiastic and free labour, to later GOM it and exploit it commercially. As they do now in other settings like opensim or SL.
I’d love to see where these proprietary code fundamentalists are. Where are they hidden? I’ve never seen them, anywhere. What I see are sometimes coders in companies who make proprietary software and who also use and recognize opensouce software, and who are nothing like the opensouce zealots who insist everything be free. I don’t doubt there are such fundamentalists on the other side of the aisle, I’ve just never seen them. Point me to them.
Re: “I am a free software proponent, but I don’t care what you choose, as long as you don’t try to tell me what I can choose, use , develop, modify, do, think, or say about it. All of those things are my freedoms as they are rightfully yours.”
This is the kind of hilarious thing that opensource extremists always say. We are admonished not to speak. We can’t criticize. We can’t push back. We must bow our heads and accept the fabulousness of opensource — or else.
How any one related to SL could say “OS is always secure” given the hacking and griefing with the OS viewers and given OpenSim and all the issues there is…beyond me!