Definition of open source

[Alan Rihm]

With all due respect, that is very incorrect. As the original poster,
I'm suggesting that there is room for interpretation. Clearly you
disagree, so enough said.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Moffitt [mailto:nick at zork.net] 
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 8:17 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Definition of open source


Zvezdan Petkovic  quotation:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 04:16:22PM -0800, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> > Zvezdan Petkovic  quotation:
> > > On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:59:06AM -0500, James Harrell wrote:
> > > > believe that the time has come for Commercial Open Source
> > > Commercial Open Source is an oxymoron.
> > Incorrect.  The Open Source Definition requires that a license 
> > permit commercial use.
> 
> The original poster's definition of Commercial Open Source was an 
> oxymoron.  Read it please and then school me.

The original poster quite clearly does not want Open Source, which makes
one wonder why he's even talking to this list.

-- 
"Forget the damned motor car                          Nick Moffitt
and build cities for lovers and friends."            nick at zork.net
       -- Lewis Mumford