On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > If it is Open Source, there will be no more commercial status.
> I'm, of course quite wiling to help in any way I can, even with the > actual coding. I do suggest, however, that the "registrar" (for want > of a better word(, keep a pretty tight rein over the way things are > handled (sorry Phoebus, no soundforge...in my opinion - which is > why the 'most' and not "all" above...).. I know that this will enrage > the proponents of totally free sources, with which you can do > whatever you want. However, we should consider that our > resources are limited, and we will all be better off if we share them > in an intelligent (and that means managed) manner. That doesn't > mean that if somebody absolutely wants some feature, this feature > can't be parcelled out to him/her (I'm being optimistic here). Ok, now I am totally confused. Open source has a very specific meaning. And this isn't it. If the source isn't going to be generally available, it isn't open source, and you shouldn't call it that. I've worked on an open source project (pgplus.ewtoo.org) and think this distinction is important, because it sets up peoples' expectations. They expect to be able to download the source, and modify it for their own personal needs. If this isn't possible, not only is the source not "open", but the project concerned has an entirely different focus and result. Dave
