From: "Al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:43:50 -0500
> Lipscomb, Al writes:
> > Open Source is often used to describe software that has
> its source code
> ^ incorrectly
> > available regardless of the license involved. "Free
> Software" as promoted by
> > the Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a different thing. I
> belive that the
> > DJB software is Open Source, but not free.
>
> Nope. If it's not free, it's not OSI Certified Open Source Software.
> I'm on the board; you have my personal guarantee that that
> will remain
> the case as long as I am.
Don't care. What I care about is what the words mean in an actual language.
In this case English. I do not recognize OSI as a standards body and do not
care what definition of Open Source can be found at opensource.org or the
FSF. When I look up the words "open" and "source" in my Websters I am not
going to cut out big chucks of what fits because some people have some kind
of agenda they are trying to promote.
Cool. ``Open source'' was invented because people thought ``free
software'' was a misuse of English. Now we can see the same thing
happen to ``open source.''
What will the next term be? ``Software for which source available and
for which others are not restricted from redistributing changed
versions?'' How about ``redistributable source?''
The way I use the terms, DJBware is neither free software nor open
source. It's source-available and no-cost, but it's not
modified-redistributable.
Ian
