Definition of open source
zvezdan at CS.WM.EDU
Sun Nov 7 22:47:30 UTC 2004
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 05:26:22PM -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
> > 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.
> You are making the classic Gate funded misconception that "Commercial"
> == "Monopoly Rent Seeking". Monopoly rents (royalty payments) is simply
> one commercial business model among many, not the definition of
> Most supporters of Free Markets recognize that commerce can happen, and
> actually happens best, without the government granted monopolies whenever
> that is possible. For the vast majority of software this is possible, so
> opposing free market economics in the name of commerce makes no sense.
I've already replied couple of times to other people in this thread and
unfortunately you are the one pulling the trigger of my patience.
I have referred to the original poster's definition of Commercial Open
Source as an oxymoron because he was trying to define a proprietary
software as a commercial open source.
I made a small mistake by extracting a single sentence from his post and
replying tersely. However you make a grave mistake coming after two
days and replying in the middle of the thread without even trying to
read everything that was going on.
If you can't make an effort to get informed what was going on in the
thread then you can be so kind to refrain from redundant comments.
Also, I am obviously subscribed to this list and sending me message
directly as well as through the list is against the rules of netiquette.
I do not need your schooling on what open source is or isn't in my
mailbox twice. It's not that much valuable.
Zvezdan Petkovic <zvezdan at cs.wm.edu>
More information about the License-discuss