On 5/8/08, Herbert Graf wrote: > On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 20:06 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > > Olin's programmer does not really belong to open source because of the > > license limit. > > Umm, sorry Xiaofan, but I think you are confusing terms. AFAIK, Olin has > released the source (which is ALWAYS appreciated in my world), and > allowed people to "play" with it for their own uses. By pretty much ANY > definition I can think of this is "open source". > > Open source doesn't mean "free". Have a read of the GPL license (which > much of what is open source uses), it's pretty restrictive in certain > ways, not much less so then what Olin has stipulated. > Just read my reply to Olin and you will know I was just talking based on the popular definition of "open source". I have no problems with Olin's license. It is good and fair enough. Just like PICkit 2's license. It is fair enough for the license holder to apply whatever license they like. And for those open source license, I like GPL the least in terms of "free" and I like modified BSD much better than GPL. But in reality, Linux is better than FreeBSD in many aspects. So GPL is very good to me as well. I really do not care about license. I am also OS neutral. I am not a Linux fan boy. I am not a GPL fan boy. I am not a Microsoft apologist either as described by Bob Blick at one time. Xiaofan -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist