On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: > > Lately I had a discussion with someone who wants to provide source code > > for his project, but without makefile(s). He intends to call it "Open > > Source". > > Grrrrrrrr. Nobody has a trademark on Open Source, so he can call it > that if he wants.
Yes. As the OSI uses the term, I suspect that this will not be open source, since the 'preferred form in which the programmer would modify the program' should (IMO) include the makefiles (the entire 'build system,' actually, other than that provided by the operating system, or that the author expects to be provided by the operating system). More importantly, removing makefiles seems to qualify as "deliberate obfuscation" prohibited by the OSD (all of this from section 2, Source Code). So it will likely be incapable of being OSI Certified, whether it is referred to as open source or not. As a courtesy, it would be nice if this person either chose to call it something else, or tried to make it OSI Certified, out of respect for the work people are putting forth under the banner of OSI Certified open source. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
