On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Gerald Gutierrez wrote:
> > > Apple claims the OSI has blessed its license and said that it conforms to
> > > the Open Source Definition.
> >
> > Maybe, but it's not Free Software.
>
> I think the fact that they are actually trying it out is fairly amazing
> considering that they would be no worse off by simply keeping it to
> themselves.
No worse off but they can take your stuff that you right and call it their
own with no acknowledgement of you. If you have a problem with that
situation they can apparently revoke all rights to you for their source
code. Also any changes made MUST be given to them. Anyone who downloads
that software is now a developer that works for Apple for the worlds worst
compensation package and people WILL do it just because of the open source
craze. Not me. I am a GNU-born !!!
A company's primary objective is not to hire people and pay
> them large sums of money to write software which the company then gives
> away. It is to make a profit. Considering what a market failure Mozilla is
> (and to anyone who doesn't think so, review its market share over the
> past two years), it's rather surprising to me that another company would
> try opening sourcing their projects.
>
> Besides, what do you mean by "free software"? How do you distinguish
> between it and open source?
>
>
TV is chewing gum for the eyes.
-- Frank Lloyd Wright
