Erwin Bolwit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 27 Oct 1998, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Paul Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > RMS asked me to post his comments regarding the JTPL:
>>
>> > Sun claims that the Sun Technology Public License for Jini is a free
>> > software (they say "open source") license.
>> I agree with all the points you and RMS have written. But, as I see
>> it, Sun is not claiming that Jini is Free Software. They say it is
>> Open Source, which just means they're willing to provide source code
>> for those who agree with the terms for that.
> OpenSource is a registered certification mark, owned by Software in the
> Public Interest.
I shouldn't have used capital letters. I really meant `open source',
in plain English, not `Open Source' as registered. Of course, using
this term is misleading, and can even be considered malicious, so some
criticism is certainly deserved.
Couldn't we say they're polluting the namespace of Open Source and
Free Software, just like M$ is doing with Java?
--
Alexandre Oliva
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil
