Definition of open source

[James Harrell]

I know Rick's trying to pick a fight, so I won't bite (too much).
The software Rick refers to has never been called "Open Source"
nor does it claim OSD compliance.

In many circles outside of this list, the terms "Open Source" and
"open source" have different connotations. I'm certain that purist
advocates will declare it should not be so; and I will not try to
dissuade you from trying to change this. But be aware of it, since
I don't think that is going away any sooner than OSI changing the
OSD. 

Doesn't LGPL actually allow closed redistribution (with certain
requirements), even for toll-booth SW products? Why then is there
such animosity to a hybrid of Open Source and for-fee software
when OSI seems to actually approve of selling closed-source SW
that utilizes LGPL libraries? 

In my mind this duality provides precident for considering a
Commercial Open Source Definition. 

Alan's needs and implementation seem a *lot* closer to Open Source
than MS-Proprietary in the spectrum of software licensing. Why not
embrace similar ideas that can actually be used to further your
own- rather than push them away as if they were The Evil Bill? A
good relationship could be fostered that provides benefits to both
Open Source and Commercial Open Source.

Regards,
James




-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Moen [mailto:rick at linuxmafia.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 5:02 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Definition of open source

>I smell a second rat in this conversation