[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote: > 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: [...] > > > > 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 [...] > > 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"?
Probably. Confusing, isn't it? Why "Open Source" software is too ambiguous http://mjr.towers.org.uk/writing/ambigopen.html Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
