On 12/7/2012 5:26 PM, Scott McGrath wrote:
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
You're confusing the two. Stallman promotes Free Software (simply put,
libre, not like beer). GPL code is open source code. Open source doesn't
have to be GPL.
You're certainly free to have your own, unique, definition of "open
source," but don't expect it to be understood by others.
'There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell
you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
Heck under those terms code released under the BSD license does not
qualify as 'open source'.
Yes, it does. http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
Note that the definition of open source doesn't prohibit the code from
being re-distributed under a non-open license, as the BSD allows, and
the GPL prohibits. BSD is open source, but the BSD license allows one to
modify the code, then sell it commercially and/or keep the code
proprietary (i.e. distribute additional terms) - it's that modified code
would no longer be considered open source.
_______________________________________________
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.
