> AT&T licensed it free of charge to academic and government users in the seventies — until everyone was locked in.
More nuance: firstly, there is a story, which may be urban legend, that Thompson and Ritchie secretly gave source code to user groups, by leaving tapes in a predetermined outdoors location to be picked up.
That set aside, AT&T was operating under a some kind of consent decree from 1956 which prevented them from entering the computer business. Which means that Unix couldn't be sold as a product. This is why they distributed it for just cost.
When they got out of that decree, that's when they started to view Unix as a business asset.
Probably one of the worst articles I've read on the subject.
It would be fine if the focus of the article were openly merely "what exactly do the words 'Open-Source' mean and how does it compare to other concepts like 'Free Software,'" but by going bigger, I think the author just about misses everything.
The hit-job on Stallman doesn't help either; love or hate his problematic statements, author does everyone a disservice by not noticing how profound his ideas on software are.
> While he kicked off the movement, Richard Stallman himself has proven to be a controversial figure. He left the Free Software Foundation in 2019 after he made some controversial statements about the Epstein scandal that followed his own pattern of unpleasant behavior.
Am I off the mark in thinking that this really doesn't belong here and detracts from the article?
> Free and open source software movements have no shortage of problematic unempathetic leaders
True of democracy, True in the business-world, True in religion, True in philosophy... People are not code, so open source can define a licence but when people are interacting with each other, there will always be problematic people.