On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, M. Adam Davis wrote: > 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. Wikipedia: "Perens attempted to register 'open source' as a service mark for the OSI, but that attempt was impractical by trademark standards. ... Although the OSI definition of "open source software" is widely accepted, a small number of people and organizations use the term to refer to software where the source is available for viewing, but which may not legally be modified or redistributed. Such software is more often referred to as source-available, or as shared source, a term coined by Microsoft in opposition to open source." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software Regards, Mark markrages@gmail -- Mark Rages, Engineer Midwest Telecine LLC markrages@midwesttelecine.com -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist