Definition of open source
nelson at crynwr.com
Mon Nov 8 03:23:58 UTC 2004
James Harrell writes:
> In many circles outside of this list, the terms "Open Source" and
> "open source" have different connotations.
There are a few people who have been under a rock for the last six
years who have never heard of "Open Source" and don't know what it
means. The fact that such people exist does not mean that you can
misuse a term which has a written definition that is generally agreed
upon in the industry.
> In my mind this duality provides precident for considering a
> Commercial Open Source Definition.
The Open Source Definition *already* allows for commercial use. In
fact it requires that a license allow for commercial use. Any license
which discriminated against commercial users would not be approved.
> >I smell a second rat in this conversation
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Violence never solves
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | problems, it just changes
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 212-202-2318 voice | them into more subtle
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | problems.
More information about the License-discuss