[License-discuss] Pritunl "open source"

John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Thu Jun 21 01:28:51 UTC 2018


On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:37 PM, B Galliart <bgallia at gmail.com> wrote:


> (1) What advocacy information does the Open Source Initiative provide
> which indicates it is possible to protect the commercial viability of a
> product when honoring the Open Source Definition?
>

Such a thing is hardly necessary any more.  There are so many commercial
companies that distribute products that are entirely open source (Oracle,
IBM, Microsoft, etc.) that the point should have been made by now.  It
isn't typically the case that *all* their products are open source, of
course.  But Red Hat is still pure-play, and so were MySQL and Trolltech
before they were acquired, which was done on the basis of their commercial
valuation.

(2) If someone still is not convinced the OSD is right for their product
> but still wants to market their limited license code as Open Source, what
> is the downside in doing so?
>

Being exposed to scorn and objurgation by those of us who care about the
proper use of technical terms.

-- 
John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
Humpty Dump Dublin squeaks through his norse
                Humpty Dump Dublin hath a horrible vorse
But for all his kinks English / And his irismanx brogues
                Humpty Dump Dublin's grandada of all rogues.  --Cousin James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180620/b609777b/attachment.html>


More information about the License-discuss mailing list