On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Raj Mathur wrote: > On Wednesday 26 Aug 2009, jtd wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 August 2009, justin joseph wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > The letter http://windows7sins.org/letter/ is licensed under > > > Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. we could use the same > > > with modifications > > > if we can get a Waiver. People might want to change instances of > > > "free software" with > > > "Free and Open source software" and other changes relevant to > > > FOSSCOMM context. > > > > So you support M$ opensource, or several of the other software that > > have sources open, but do not allow you to copy, modify or create > > derivatives? > > "Open Source" has a specific definition: > > http://opensource.org/docs/osd
Only problem is the target audience does not know. > > As far as I know, MS' efforts to muddy the terminology wrt "Open Source" > are going down, partly because two of their licences got accepted by the > OSI. Aha OSI. With licences like this http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ca-tosl1.1.php or this http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php > Now if they misuse the term they run the risk of having those > invalidated as open source licences, which is a chance they wouldn't > want to take. So? how does is it change the already thoroughly muddy term. > There are people within MS who react promptly to reported > abuses of the term "Open Source" by their own organisation. > > Agreed that there do exist entities who muddy the definition, but in > general I'd say "Open Source" has as clear a definition as "Free > Software". Not in the target audience. Neither is FOSS. But atleast FOSS is clearly seen as "something M$ can never manage". -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
