On 01/08/2013 10:43 PM, Engel Nyst wrote:
On 1/7/13, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote:
What I meant was a specific rewording. In other words, I'm inviting you
to do the work you're inviting me to do :-).
I'll do it, it's a
[...]
You can see the PHP source code, so it's Open Source, right?
That could be misleading, since the PHP source code could mean
https://github.com/php/php-src.
How about:
FooProgram is written in PHP, and I have the source code. Does that
mean it's definitely open source?
How about being more to the point:
Just because I have the source code for a program written in a script
language should I consider it open source?
We could reference a few script languages on the answer.
Bruno.
Weird? Mobile.
On Jan 25, 2013 10:06 AM, Reincke, Karsten k.rein...@telekom.de
On 25 January 2013 09:37, Bruno Souza br...@javaman.com.br wrote:
How about being more to the point:
Just because I have the source code for a program written in a script
language should I consider it open source?
How about Just because I have the source code for a program should I
consider
Would it be clearer to say:
I have some code written in a scripting language. Does that mean
it's open source by definition?
'Source code for a program written in a script language' is confusing
to me because, as phrased, it could describe situations where the
'source code' spoken of is
Dear Fontana et al,
On 25 January 2013 14:53, Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com wrote:
Would it be clearer to say:
I have some code written in a scripting language. Does that mean
it's open source by definition?
I think we should not limit the statement to scripting language because
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 05:43:07AM +0200, Engel Nyst wrote:
In case it helps in any way, I'd suggest:
You can see the PHP source code, so it's Open Source, right?
No. The code of applications written in languages like PHP or
JavaScript is visible, but that alone doesn't mean anything yet:
Friendly reminder to everyone that specific patches to the FAQ are
always welcome :)
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 05:43:07AM +0200, Engel Nyst wrote:
In case it helps in any way, I'd suggest:
You can see the PHP source code,
Dear Chad,
In case it helps in any way, I'd suggest:
You can see the PHP source code, so it's Open Source, right?
No. The code of applications written in languages like PHP or
JavaScript is visible, but that alone doesn't mean anything yet: it
always depends on the license under which
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 06:57:49PM +, Cinly Ooi wrote:
I missed this until now.
Only if the code is licensed under an approved Open Source license is
probably not the most ideal way to say this part of it. Rather, say that
it is open source only if the code is available under a
Here is a useful and explicit definition you may want to use:
The term Source Code means the preferred form of the Original Work
for making modifications to it and all available documentation
describing
how to modify the Original Work.
http://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0
Chad Perrin scripsit:
1. acquire a trademark for the term open source
That turned out not to be possible for a variety of silly reasons.
That's why we have the trademark OSI Certified.
--
What asininity could I have uttered John Cowan co...@ccil.org
that they applaud me thus?
12 matches
Mail list logo
