Definition of open source
alan at centraview.com
Sun Nov 7 13:30:13 UTC 2004
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.
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
More information about the License-discuss