> Actually, the generally accepted definition of "open source" > involves free and re-distributable.
There are many competing definitions of open source. I don't think there is a generally accepted definition beyond the literal fact that the source code must be open to the user. And, "freely redistributable" is not the same as "free and redistributable". The OSI definition doesn't require you to give someone the source code; you can sell it to someone if it's yours. "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." So, I could write a program and sell it to you, but to conform to this definition of open source, I would have to provide you the source code and allow you to redistribute that source code as you see fit within the context of your own development projects, without requiring payment for that redistribution. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJQ Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/Flex/message.cfm/messageid:3993 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/Flex/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.37
