I see, sorry then they didn't became stupid they are very smart actualy
they took 2 words which mean something and gave them a whole new meaning
very smart and maniplutive.
I personaly dislike people like that even if I agree with their cause.
and btw reading opensource.org didn't add much to my respect for them.
it seems that all their goal is to make the term open source to catch up.
they admit copying large part of the OSD from debian.
being proud that their term passed free software term and putting a graph
of how much it's being used.
remind me again why do we even bother listening to them?
Ely Levy
System group
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002, Ely Levy wrote about "Re: open source law?":
> > You are right I missed the part where OSI became stupid and immitated FSF
> > it wasn't always like that AFAIK.
> > you are right OSI and FSF are the same, but opensource and fs are not the
> > same by far.
> > one require the program to be free one require the program to be giving
> > with its sources.
> > and altough OSI no longer know the diffrance law people does.
> > they don't expect sun to give away solaris for free or ms to give windows
> > for free they want to have the source code with it.
> > even BSDI required license then suddenly they are not open source anymore?
>
> No, BSDI was never called "open source" - it was a "source license".
>
> As far as I know the term "open source" wasinvented by the same guys
> running OSI ("open source initiative"). I don't remember that term being
> used by anyone before them, though you are right, it might be understood
> intuitively to have a different meaning, like "software which comes with
> source, but you can't pass it around". This is one of the reasons that
> Stallman objects to the term "open source", and one of the reasons it
> was chosen in the first place (to a layman, who doesn't know what open
> source really refers to, this phrase doesn't sound "communist").
>
> In the 1999 "Open Sources" book (the Stallman quote I gave in the previous
> email was from there) already discussed the "Open Source Definition", by
> Bruce Perens, and it was essentially equivalent to the one they have now
> on the site. The "OSI" never changed their minds or "became stupid".
>
> If you misunderstood their "open source" definition, don't feel bad: that's
> *Exactly* what Perens and his friends meant to do (see the "Remaking the meme"
> chapter in O'Reilly's "Peer to Peer" book). They deliberately chose a term
> that can be confused to mean something conservative and capitalistic,
> instead of the term "free software" that is more easily confused (?) with
> being communist, anti-business, anarchistic, left-wing liberal.
>
>
> --
> Nadav Har'El | Wednesday, Oct 2 2002, 26 Tishri 5763
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-----------------------------------------
> Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |In case of emergency, this box may be
> http://nadav.harel.org.il |used as a quotation device.
>
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
