Definition of open source

[Alan Rihm]

I agree this will not be solved in this discussion. I was simply
interested to see if anyone shared my views. Clearly there are many
given the on and off list responses received. It was not my intent to
change anyone's mind.

Thank you for your thoughts and opinions.

Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Marius Amado Alves [mailto:amado.alves at netcabo.pt] 
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 10:23 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Definition of open source


>>Why should someone be able to make money on someone else's code,
>>without any financial responsibility to the originator of that code?
(Alan)
> 
> The whole idea behind open source is that the code is open; it's 
> freely available to all. (Arnoud)

This is the only difference. A difference in principle. And an 
unsolvable difference.

Note Arnoud did not really reply. Alan asked *why* should authors not be

entitled to payment. Arnoud simply said that authors should NOT be 
entitled to payment.

The known only reason why open source is contrary to author being 
entitled to payment is a vision of the world where authors are paid 
through donations only.

Alan can forget about changing this aspect of the definition of open 
source. It is "the whole idea" of it.