Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Apps

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the before-there-was-github dept.

Esther Schindler writes "The Airline Control Program (ACP), introduced by IBM around 1967, predated the term 'open source' by decades. But you may be surprised by how much of its development resembles the FOSS movement today. The ITWorld.com article An Abbreviated History of ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Applications describes what made it special."

11 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This was how it was back in the days, and that is why RMS started GNU and FSF, to keep it that way.

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RMS was angered when a printer manufacturer wouldn't supply the source code to the printer driver, IIRC.

      And what most people miss about this story is not just that the manufacturer wouldn't provide the driver. It was that they refused to provide the driver so that rms could modify it so that MIT could use the hardware in the way that they pleased after paying for it.

      The device was a shiny new laser printer. rms wanted to add a feature to the driver - notifying someone when (not if) the printer jammed so that print jobs wouldn't get backed up when the printer jammed without having to have someone babysit the printer. The printer maker (I believe it was Xerox, but I could be wrong on this part) didn't want to give up the source because they were afraid that it contained trade secrets because they were the only game in town for laser printing.

      The refusal of source code for drivers goes on today, mainly from wireless manufacturers (with the added point that they feel they might be liable if someone violates an FCC reg because they tweaked the driver) and the video card makers.

  2. Re:It's not open source. by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you are confusing Open Source with Free Software.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  3. Re:It's not open source. by gparent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Open source means the code is available. Nothing else.

    What you're looking for is GNU/Freedom.

  4. Re:It's not open source. by nedlohs · · Score: 1, Insightful

    http://opensource.org/docs/osd

    There's quite a few more requirements than just having the code be available.

  5. Re:It's not open source. by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So says OSI, but they haven't actually managed to establish legal control over the term 'open source', so at best, the definition is contested, at worst, there are multiple meanings.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  6. Re:It's not open source. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://opensource.org/docs/osd

    There's quite a few more requirements than just having the code be available.

    Yes, and those requirements go beyond open source; it's more a definition of free software than open source. While many peopel view open source and free as one and the same I think it's worthwhile to differentiate between the two.

    BSD, for example, is an open source project with a license that differs from the above in allowing for proprietary use as well.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  7. Re:It's not open source. by koiransuklaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the hell is wrong with moderators today? This is not insightful or informative... loufoque make a perfectly valid point. ACP may resemble open source, but it is not open source.

    Claiming that the definition of open source does not include redistribution rights is revisionist, if not totally absurd.

  8. Re:It's not open source. by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Non-advertise clause BSD meets those terms perfectly - http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php. You can allow *more* things, you just can't allow *less*.

    Those people did essentially come up with the term "open source", using their definition seems reasonable. Of course they couldn't trade mark it since it's a descriptive term.

    "Free software" clearly means "software without cost" but using that definition in a discussion about "open source" and "free software" licenses is retarded.

  9. Re:Definition 1, Definition 2, etc. by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "speciality coffee" isn't a specifically crafted term of art invented by a particular organization.

    "Open Source" is.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  10. Re:Ummm, Spacewar!? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > but it was rare to have a mechanism in place to submit changes anywhere or pass updates to
    > all the users (remember - no internet, few modems, source mostly passed on 7 or 9 track tape reels).

    Actually both existed. Spacewar! was distributed primarily in paper-tape form, patches were contributed with paper, scissors and tape.

    No, really.

    Maury