Alex Rousskov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > Sources which may not be distributed are not open source.  I
> > strongly suggest that you not use that term.
> ... on this mailing list which is OSI-specific and uses OSI-specific
> terminology.

I personally think it is to everyone's advantage if the term "open
source" is consistently used to mean software which more or less
follows the OSD.

I personally think it is to nobody's advantage to permit this term to
be twisted to the point where it can be used to describe software
which may not be redistributed freely.  Or, rather, using the term in
that sense is beneficial only for the person who owns the software,
and detrimental to everybody else.

So I will continue to strongly suggest that people use the term in
ways which I think are beneficial for everybody.  Clarity of
terminology is good for everyone except people who intend to deceive.
(In making this general statement I do not mean to imply that anybody
on this list is trying to deceive anybody else.)

license-discuss archive is at

Reply via email to