On Mon, 31 May 2004, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote: > Em Fri, 21 May 2004 06:34:08 -0700, Troy A. Griffitts escreveu: > > > it might be > > useful to document our implementation-- in theory-- of the OSS > > development model > > I understand OSS means Open Source Software. > > It might be nitpicking, but I'd like to point out that Open > Source is about licensing, not a development model. > > The discussion about development models you probably mean is > the one of _The Cathedral and the Bazaar_ by ESR, and it is quite > orthogonal to licensing. > > But way to go with your (ours?) bazaar!
You're probably confusing Free Software with Open Source Software. Free Software is definitely about licensing. Open Source Software just indicates that the source code is available. Open Source doesn't indicate you have any rights regarding the software (i.e. some specified set of minimal license rights) other than, presumably, the right to read the source. (That ignores the whole OSI Open Source definition, since OSI post-dates both the origination of Open Source Software as a concept and as a term in wide use.) I think, however, what Troy was probably alluding to metonymically, was the development model associated with Open Source Software, which I think everyone has a vague notion of. Most people on the list probably haven't even heard of the Cathedral and the Bazaar, much less read it. So, bearing clarity in mind, "OSS" in this context was probably a pretty good choice. --Chris _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
