compatibility and the OSD

Rick Moen rick at
Tue Sep 28 19:32:32 UTC 2004

Quoting Alex Rousskov (rousskov at

> Is there a scientifically sound evidence that "open source" 
> established meaning (among most folks working with software) is "OSD 
> compliant"? 

(Wow, that's not rhetorical at all, is it?  ;->  )

> Please note that this question does not imply that such meaning is or
> is not established. It is a neutral question. Is there evidence that
> "open source" has any specific established meaning other than you get
> some access to source code of the program?

You'll want to see the archives of this mailing list and OSI's history,
and can confirm the matter from your own research.

> Even carefully chosen words tend to live the life of their own.

Yes.  We're nurturing this one.

Are you looking for someone to argue with?

> "Please use the phrase we inveneted the way we want to use it" is a 
> weak argument, IMHO....

Your humble opinion has been duly noted and discarded.

> OSD is a great thing for the community. Let's focus on that. I do not 
> see value in defending any very specific "open source" meaning.

And again.

> Your own experience with evaluating Source Forge licenses is a case in
> point...

No, it's not.  It just proves something about the management in
question, which I'll be polite and not voice.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list