Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Open source", to me, focusses on the development method. [...]
The term and its promotion *confuses* the development method and the licensing terms. The Cathedral and the Bazaar is clearly about development style, but the Open Source Definition(ugh) makes no mention of it. > > > Open Source is a term that was coined because the term 'free' in English > > > is ambiguous. > > http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/free-notfree.php > > It might be revisionist; I don't know - but the argument about the > ambiguity was what I was always aware of. I think it is revisionist. The Open Source Initiative was an initiative to secure a trademark which could be used to label free software in a business-friendly way. It failed, but OSI marches on regardless like a zombie. Open Source is not free of ambiguity anyway: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/writing/ambigopen.html "Open Source" need not have necessarily fared any better in that meeting. The number of times I've heard it misnamed as "open software"... No, if the account director is an imprecise moron, you're screwed any road. Regards, -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
