On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:26:53AM -0400, Steve Mallett wrote:
> While its not 'statutory' do you still consider it the 'definition' of
> open-source?
Yes. Indeed, I don't believe a statutory-language definition would work as
a manifesto, the way the OSD does. Imagine if the declaration of
indep
> I would love to have a commentary piece for Linux.com and/or
> NewsForge.com on how the spirit of the OSD may be different from its
> practical application.
>
> Anyone up for this?
Let's hear back from Bruce first, yuh guys?
Roblimo, you _could_ end up with many commentary pieces here. All eq
> Recognizing the weaknesses (and strengths) of speaking in symbolic terms.
> Is there anything _else_ that you feel helps define the 'spirit' of the OSD?
I would love to have a commentary piece for Linux.com and/or
NewsForge.com on how the spirit of the OSD may be different from its
pra
Bruce,
[snip]
> 1. The OSD is not written in statutory language.
While its not 'statutory' do you still consider it the 'definition' of
open-source?
> It still makes a _wonderful_ manifesto, its success speaks for that. But to
> apply it blindly would be foolhardy. I imagine that there is an
4 matches
Mail list logo
