On 5/8/08, Mark Rages wrote: > While your software is open source in the sense that the source code > is available for reading, it does not meet the Open Source > Initiative's definition: (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) nor does > it embody the four freedoms of the FSF. > (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). Therefore is not "open > source" in the accepted usage of the term. It's true that some of his open source software does not meet the criteria defined by these two groups. That doesn't mean it's not open source. It means that if they had their way the term "Open Source" would be trademarked and owned by either of them and they could prevent its usage outside of their _very_ narrow definition. Olin can call it open source all he wants. He makes it clear in the license what is open about his source and what is closed. Even the two organizations mentioned above encourage people to read and abide by the license included with any software. Unless someone has it trademarked and enforces it, then there's no need to force everyone to adopt a particular definition, especially when that definition is so narrow given that the words are merely "open" and "source". If they want to force a particular usage, they need to get a trademark on a phrase they can control, use it, enforce it, and settle down instead of telling everyone what open source is and isn't. -Adam -- EARTH DAY 2008 Tuesday April 22 Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet http://www.driveslowly.org -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist