Being that this is a project that uses the Apache license, I would think those that participate would be indifferent how the term is used. Those that choose to contribute under an Apache license are interested in the solution, not the politic. Those that get upset are those who contribute under licenses where they are already restricting the user.
If you want to get semantics involved, a SugarCRM type project is certainly an open source project. It's just not a FREE AND open source project. Those that are getting upset are trying to make open source ubiquitous with free. Everyone has an agenda. There isn't a "holier than thou" involved in this topic. --- David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure if any of us can do anything about this, but it appears > that enough people are getting upset about certain "open source" > industry practices and abuses that perhaps the wheels will start to > turn: > > http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9666856083.html > > If it were up to me "open source" would mean real community driven > open source (ie software licensed ONLY under an open source license), > and the other stuff would have to use a different name. > > It's too bad that the industry doesn't cater to consumers as there > are pretty active consumer protection groups that might get involved > with this sort of corporate practice... > > -David > >
