>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Back
<andy at smokebelch.org> writes:
Andrew> So whilst the GNU project was announced in 1983 I've heard
Andrew> many examples being cited of the source to software being
Andrew> shared prior to this, E.g. IBM's VM up to vN.N. And indeed
Andrew> recall reading somewhere that up until a certain point in
Andrew> time the source to most if not all software was available. As
Andrew> vendors made their money from hardware sales and you were
Andrew> unlikely to be able to buy a clone or build a machine
Andrew> yourself, and so safe-guarding source code was not a major
Andrew> concern.
I'm not sure if that's really accurate.
To take some examples I know:
DEC distributed its PDP-11 software in binary form when possible.
Some had to be in source form -- BASIC-PLUS components of RSTS, for
example, or source modules that had to be assembled on site to
customize things for a particular installation. ("Sysgen") But apart
from those, a listing license would cost you extra, and
a source
license would cost you a whole lot extra (like 5-10x the binary
license price). And in any case, no matter what the form of
distribution, everything was subject to restrictive licenses and
copyrights.
Some 1960s era software is open because it's in the public domain --
apparently not intentionally but because of an error on the part of
the company. CDC's COS (Chippewas OS for the 6600) and IBM OS/360 are
examples, as I understand it. This happened because the sources were
made available and were not marked with a copyright notice. At that
time (but not any longer) US copyright law required notice for
copyright to exist -- lack of notice meant release into the public
domain. But those things happened only occasionally; by and large
documents and code were marked with copyright notices.
I don't know examples older than that.
Another angle would be non-vendor software -- either academic, or
third party commercial.
Then there are of course the various user groups and their software
libraries -- DECUS is a well known example. That's somewhat like open
source though not necessarily; for example, contributions might have
restrictions on them like "not to be sold, rented or leased for
profit" (quoted from COSAP V1 -- in the DECUS library, from Lawrence
University). Others might be closer to open as we now understand the
term, most likely BSD-style rather than GPL-style.
I suspect a lot of software was shared case by case informally,
especially in the academic community. X writes something, Y hears
about it, asks X for a copy, gets a tape (or box of cards) in the
mail.
paul