On Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, at 21:25 US/Pacific, James Caska wrote:

> I think it comes down to intent. The real 'spirit' of OpenSource
> seems to be a big 'F.U' to capatilism actually...

Since I just "yelled" at someone else for painting all proprietary
software developers with an overly broad brush, so I feel a bit
compelled to yell at this equivalent slandering of "open source."
PERHAPS you could say this about the Gnu project, and the GPL in
particular.  But that's only a small portion of "open source" in
general.  The BSD license is plenty accessible to both proprietary
and open source developers, for instance.  And there's plenty of
source actually release to the public domain, or with all sorts of
intermediate suggestions on how it ought to be used.  Dating back
MUCH further than gnu, BTW.

You run into interesting sets of confusion with things like libraries
that were originally written separately, and are now included in
linux distributions, BSD distributions, and also available on their
own.  Which licenses actually apply?  What if you find the identical
code with different license agreements attached?  (most recently,
I ran into this trying to find open source "curses" screen libraries.)

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads