Definition of open source

[Alan Rihm]

No appologies needed. Your response was clear. Note that I'm not looking
to be convinced or to convince you. I started with an observation (based
on perception) regarding the current definition and licenses. Then I
presented a business case that warrants a discussion. Since this is
clearly not a case of right or wrong, but rather opinion, I'm happy with
the responses provided so far.

The open source movement will continue to grow and change, and I will
contribute in any way possible. As change occurs, I suspect that the
discussion on definition and acceptable licenses will continue...and
change

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael R. Bernstein [mailto:webmaven at cox.net] 
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 8:17 PM
To: alan at centraview.com
Cc: 'Arnoud Engelfriet'; license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: RE: Definition of open source


On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 16:03, Alan Rihm wrote:
> This response did not answer the question, but rather restated a
> position that was already clear.

My apologies. Obviously I am confused as to what your question was.
Could you state it simply and directly for me please?

>  Also, you have not convinced me that my
> "proposed solution is unnecessary".

If you wish to counter my arguments, I can try to be more convincing.

-- 
Michael R. Bernstein <webmaven at cox.net>