On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 10:43:50PM -0500, Al wrote:
> 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.
If you want to have your own definition of "Open Source", that's fine. Just
keep it to yourself. When you use the words "Open Source" in a public forum,
people will generally assume that you are talking about software that
complies with the OSD. To publically claim that software is "Open Source",
based on your own personal definition is just boorish and arrogant, and
invites (semantic) arguments.
All the king's horses, etc.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes,
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires."
38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_
4:56am up 161 days, 3:12, 12 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
