Definition of open source
'Rick Moen'
rick at linuxmafia.com
Sun Nov 7 23:08:47 UTC 2004
Quoting Alan Rihm (alan at centraview.com):
> Rick, I'm not sure why there is so much anger in the room....
Suggestion: Cease trying to distract attention from the issue and
correct the error of referring to a clearly proprietary licence as "open
source" on your company's Web pages. You will then notice cessation of
"anger" towards you and your firm, having removed the cause.
> ("I smell a second rat in this conversation"...that is just ignorant).
I'm sorry, but I think my point speaks for itself.
> I believe in open source based on today's terms.
But the company of which you're founder and CEO doesn't? I don't know
what particular sort of doubletalk that is, but it's really rather
beside the point.
> It got us here after all, but surely it is healthy to discuss
> alternative views. You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to
> be rude.
Your _views_ are not, in and of themselves, a problem (although the
cheesy special-pleading polemics were a bit insulting). By contrast,
your firm's public statements are a problem. So: Your company Web
site's front page (http://www.centraview.com/) and a linked press
release page (http://www.centraview.com/press_2004oct12.html) refer to
the above-mentioned proprietary licence as "open source". That is a
deceptive misstatement of fact. Please correct the error by removing
your firm's false claim of open source licensing. Thank you.
--
Cheers, There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who
Rick Moen know ternary, those who don't, and those who are now
rick at linuxmafia.com looking for their dictionaries. -- Ron Fabre
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list