Definition of open source

Rick Moen rick at
Sun Nov 7 18:31:29 UTC 2004

Quoting Alan Rihm (alan at

> 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.

No, not quite enough said -- and also, just a bit too much.

Calling this just a matter of opinion is presumptuous and disingenuous:
Deciding one day to relabel proprietary software as "commercial open
source" would contravene core principles of open source -- deliberately so.
And that's a non-starter:  OSI's core principles are not up for debate
-- not for CentraView's business convenience or anyone else's.

> 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.

The open source movement is indeed prospering, which I suspect accounts
for people occasionally popping up trying to turn it into a cover
vehicle for proprietary software.  We've seen it before; it doesn't work.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list