Mark Rages wrote:
> The GPL is only concerned with copying.  It doesn't address how you
> use the software once you have it (compiling it, linking it against
> other software, etc.)   It only addresses distribution.

But distribution is one of various uses of source code, so the GPL does
restrict how it can be used.

> 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:

So?  I don't remember them getting ordained the Official Keeper of the Open
Source definition.  The Open Software Foundation puts restrictions on what
you can do with their source.  I think some of them are rather onerous and
actually hurt the wide accessibility of software for end users.  They do
this because they have a particular agenda they want to push.  The widest
accessibility of software for end users isn't their goal.  I agree they have
the right to put whatever restrictions on their software they want, as does
the owner of any software, but I totally disagree that they have some sort
of moral high ground and get to define what "open source" is.

> Therefore is not "open
> source" in the accepted usage of the term.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.  I don't accept their definition of
"open source", nor do I agree that their exact definition is accepted usage.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist