• General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    2 months ago

    To be honest, I wouldn’t have been much impressed by the HTML specifications, either. An open source alternative for gopher? Oh, how cute. Be sure to tell all your geek friends.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        2 months ago

        In February 1993, the University of Minnesota announced that it would charge licensing fees for the use of its implementation of the Gopher server.[11][9] Users became concerned that fees might also be charged for independent implementations.[12][13] Gopher expansion stagnated, to the advantage of the World Wide Web, to which CERN disclaimed ownership.[14] In September 2000, the University of Minnesota re-licensed its Gopher software under the GNU General Public License.[15]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol)#Decline

        It’s probably not quite right to call it an open source alternative, though. I don’t think that gopher or anything was established in a monopolistic way, but that was before my time. Besides, the internet was all universities back then.

        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s true that Gopher never really went anywhere. It was convenient for what it was and it had Veronica (a basic search engine) which made it useful. But hyperlinks were a killer feature.

          • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            But hyperlinks were a killer feature.

            Berners-Lee didn’t come up with that idea, though, did he? I thought he got the idea from Ted Nelson’s Project Xanadu.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Gopher itself is spec’d out in RFC-1436. It’s not a particularly difficult protocol to implement. It’s easier than HTTP/1.1 (though not necessarily pre-1.0 versions; those are basic in an under-designed way, and I’d say the same about Gopher). I don’t know if that licensing fee claim holds up. People may have been worried about it at the time, but UMN never had a patent on it or anything, and RFC’s are public. If there were fees charged, it’d be the creators themselves charging them.