Le mercredi 12 juillet 2006 à 09:39 +0100, Dieter a écrit : > Warning: off topic > > > > Many in the "Open Source" camp are opposed to the GPL approach. > > > They want the "freedom" to take open software and convert it to > > > closed software. > > > > But is that what Open Source stands for? I usually consider ESR's The=20 > > Cathedral and the Bazaar as the philosophy of the Open Source movement.=20 > > It doesn't say anything about making the software proprietary. The fact=20 > > that some people claim something in the name of something doesn't make=20 > > that the original intent. > > Good point. I'm not a mind reader, so I don't know what the original intent > of "Open Source" was. At first it sounded like an attempt to reduce > confusion by replacing the word Free with the word Open. And that seemed > reasonable. But since then, I've seen a lot of politics and empire building > and > various descriptions of the difference between Free Software and Open > Software, > and now we have a bigger and more confusing mess than before. "Open" implies a lot of licences which are not necessarly compatible with the GPL, that is, some degree of openess. Things can go more confusing if the ODF becomes widely supported, but frankly, "open" is better than "free" for our purpose. > _______________________________________________ > 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)
