Definition of open source

Alan Rihm alan at
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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Moffitt [mailto:nick at] 
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 8:17 PM
To: license-discuss at
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
       -- Lewis Mumford

More information about the License-discuss mailing list