Wow- this is quite a militant reaction! I guess maybe I am in the wrong place... and it's curious to me why there is so much anger towards the commercial entity. To the others in this group- is this representative of your Open Source community at large? Should I crawl back under my rock?
>B) Commercial entities that can not stomache this have no place in >the Open Source community. Are you implying that we are not "worthy" of allowing others to read and use our source? Here I am, trying to figure out how to give back. And, in essence, you're saying you're not interested becuase I have to actually pay my employees to write software? I joined this mailing list so I could understand how to build my company in a manner that bridges the gap between the commercial world and the free world. So far, I'm not encouraged. >Even though it still won't be Open Source software, at least the >employees of the company will be able to sleep well at night. The employees of my company sleep well at night when they know that their next paycheck will clear. Is that so wrong? >It still wouldn't be open source. The idea of open source is much >more than the capitalization of words. There's an idea behind it that >is much more important than mere clauses in a definition. And this is a point I'm struggling with- how is it that you can claim ownership of the term "Open Source", how it is defined, how it is used and applied, or even the idea behind it? Philosophically- I see little difference between this and the "ownership" and regulation of softare that this group appears to fight so hard to keep "Open". As long as it's the definition of the word OPEN that YOU claim, and no one else can modify? Sounds pretty closed if you ask me! Is there zero interest here in how commercial entities can participate in the open source world? If so, please simply say so and I'll disappear, and maybe come up with my own definition of open source; I might even license it. :) James -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
