Definition of open source

[Zvezdan Petkovic]

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 04:13:29PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Zvezdan Petkovic (zvezdan at CS.WM.EDU):
> 
> > On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:59:06AM -0500, James Harrell wrote:
> > > believe that the time has come for Commercial Open Source
> > 
> > Commercial Open Source is an oxymoron.
> 
> {sigh}  No, it's not.  _Proprietary_ open source is an oxymoron.
> 
> If I sell you a copy of Ubuntu Linux on CD, that is an act of commerce.
> Ergo, the object of that transaction is, in that sense, commercial
> software.  However, except for a couple of firmware image files and 
> some typefaces, all of the contents are under open source licences.
> Therefore, it is commercial open-source software.
> 

I know.  The way he was proposing it, it was an oxymoron.
I just tried to be concise.
There have been enough long posts on the topic already.

-- 
Zvezdan Petkovic <zvezdan at cs.wm.edu>
http://www.cs.wm.edu/~zvezdan/