compatibility and the OSD
Rick Moen
rick at linuxmafia.com
Tue Sep 28 19:32:32 UTC 2004
Quoting Alex Rousskov (rousskov at measurement-factory.com):
> 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