Well the GPL crowd has kind of conflated open source with code licensed under the GPL. And yes I have met Richard Stallman on many occasions. And I'm sure he would also disagree on my definition of open source
Heck under those terms code released under the BSD license does not qualify as 'open source'. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Mike S <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/7/2012 4:08 PM, Scott McGrath wrote: >> that was my point code is open source means open for inspection by >> end-user. The tool chain is irrelevant unless it comes from GPL or >> similar licenses. Back in the mainframe days most code was >> proprietary but distributed to customer in the form of source code to >> be compiled by the end user. That code was 'Open Source' e > > Not by the most commonly accepted definition: http://opensource.org/docs/osd > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
