Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:34:59 -0800 From: Greg White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I can't see any circumstances where any of Dan's sofware can be deemed closed source. It is not the case that all software is either open source or closed source. There is a broad continuum of licensing possibilities. I already mentioned an important freedom which Dan does not permit. The lack of that freedom means that Dan's software is not open source. Saying that Dan's software is not open source does not mean that it is closed source. Dan's software is almost open source, it just isn't quite all the way there. Ian
- Re: secrets and lies Dave Sill
- Re: secrets and lies Travis Turner
- Re: secrets and lies Greg White
- RE: secrets and lies Al
- Re: secrets and lies Robin S. Socha
- Re: secrets and lies David Dyer-Bennet
- Re: secrets and lies Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: secrets and lies Russell Nelson
- Re: secrets and lies Greg White
- Re: secrets and lies Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: secrets and lies David L. Nicol
- Re: secrets and lies Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: secrets and lies Matthias Andree
- Re: secrets and lies Adam McKenna
- Re: secrets and lies Bennett Todd
- Re: secrets and lies Adam McKenna
- Re: secrets and lies Matthias Andree
- cr.yp.to delays D. J. Bernstein
- Re: cr.yp.to delays Mate Wierdl
- Re: secrets and lies Matthias Andree
