Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Greg White writes:
> > Paul Jarc wrote:
> > > Dan's software isn't open source.
> >
> > Oh, really? By whose definition?
>
> By the Open Source Initiative's, the vice-president of which is yours
> truly. It's okay if you don't believe us when we say it's not Open
> Source, but you'll find yourself in a small minority (dare I call them
> fanatics?)
>
That's the one I was waiting for. I notice your use of:
Open Source
Please find that reference, and not:
open source
in the mail that I replied to. There's a big difference between the two,
and the first reference does not exist. Nor does it refer to either
'free software' or 'Free Software'. That was my point, which in
hindsight should have been made clear. A piece of software is not
'open source' when its source is closed. A piece of software is not
'Open Source' when it does not comply with the stated policies of the
Open Source Initiative. I made the (obviously incorrect) assumption that
people on this list would have immediately seen the subtle difference.
I can't see any circumstances where any of Dan's sofware can be deemed
closed source.
GW
SNIP
