On Sat, 2003-04-12 at 00:56, Russ Johnson wrote: > * Cooper Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-04-11 23:45]: > > What I am proposing is not a huge amendment. This "single word" > > amendment calls only for the standard to be published to qualify as > > "open." > > Playing devils advocate here, because I believe in what I perceive to be > happening with OSS. > > Be very careful with that word "open" and make sure it is defined > specifically. > > When I read this message, I looked at it, and the first thing that came > to mind was, "That's what you put on a resume, when your salary is open > for discussion." > > In other words, in certain contexts, someone, somewhere could take that > "open" to mean that it's not defined. That any format is acceptable. > > Now, it's entirely possible that I'm reading this wrong, and there's a > subtext that I'm missing. If that's the case, please disregard this. > > And thanks for listening.
I encourage all to seek enlightenment from Webster. In this magical book you will find many definitions for the word "open", all of which are are arranged in order of precedence. In the case of the word "open", there are at least 3 definitions that directly relate to Open Source within the top 5 ( of the 13 listed definitions ). None of these definitions, when preceded by the word "Published", imply "not defined". http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary -- Steven A. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Eug-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
