Le lundi 10 juillet 2006 à 10:31 +0100, Dieter a écrit : > > > As Timothy pointed out in his response, "free" has multiple > > > connotations that cause all sorts of confusion, even with software > > > which really can be free (as in beer) since. That's the main reason > > > I have been trying to stick with "open" rather than free. > > > > I suppose that this is a good point. There is a problem explaining what > > 'open' means also. But, English is an ambiguous language and I have no > > cure for that. > > Documented Hardware Foundation > > Freedom Hardware Foundation > > Liberty Hardware Foundation IMHO, it doesn´t matter what "open" can mean. It´s just a point of communication. "Open" is still related to source code, not to something that the user use in first, and so this is not related to a cost. Neither "Open Source Software" tells something about cost, that just speak about a kind of software, but nothing about his cost. The mention "Free", yes. > > What I had in mind is that the W3C can't tell Microsoft that they can't > > be a member. If we think that we might have similar problems, the only > > thing that can be done is to have a strong membership agreement. > > Members that violate the agreement can be kicked out. > > There MUST be a way to keep known evil types out from the beginning. > _______________________________________________ > Open-graphics mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics > List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
