On Thu, 6 May 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> 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.

It is not clear to me whether the term is twisted by adding
restrictions to it or by using it directly, in this case to identify
software with sources open (as in visible, known to users of the
software). If OSI invented the word "open", you would be certainly
correct. Since OSI is attaching new restrictions to old words, it is
less clear who is doing the twisting.

> 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.

It is very appropriate to suggest or even require that OSI forums use
OSI terminology! Whether the terminology is "good" is not really
relevant, but I understand your motivation and the desire to spread
the terminology you like beyond OSI.

I wonder if Creative Commons will soon have to explain what "Creative"
or "Commons" means in their name! :-)

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to