On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Chris Croughton wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:56:34PM +0100, Ian Lynch wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 18:27 +0100, Alex Hudson wrote: > > > Noah Slater wrote: > > > > You could develop some software in total secrecy and occasionally > > > > publish the > > > > code with a GPL licence. This would be Free Software but to call it > > > > Open Source > > > > would be a mistake because it does not follow an open development > > > > methodology. > > > > > > Netscape was "open source" the moment they released the code; that was > > > like the first the big open source win. > > > > > > The development methodology is an adjunct. I agree that the open source > > > attitude, if there is one, is that "it's better to develop code in large > > > groups", and to do that you need a suitable licensing environment. But > > > whether or not something is "open source" is nothing to do with how it's > > > developed. > > > > And you could have open source code but a restrictive license for using > > it. > > As far as I see it Free Software is a subset of Open Source. It can't > be free (in the sense of freedom) unless the source is open, but it is > possible for the source to be open but not free (because of restrictive > licences).
Are we talking about "Open Source" as in the "Open Source Definition" or are we talking about the dollop of blue goo I found under my kitchen sink, which may have been HP Sauce once, but I've decided to name "Open Sauce"? Cheers, Phil. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
