> 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".

I don't want to enforce anything, but IMO "open source" should at least 
  imply that you are free to compile and use (including sell) the 
unmodified software any way you want. This gets a bit hazy when the 
software can't be used without associated hardware, but in my opinion 
something should not be called "open source" when its use is limited by 
proprietary hardware.

Everyone is free to use words in a way he want, but calling something 
that uses magnetic levitation on a railroad-like track and uses rockets 
for propulsion a "bike" is not very helpful in a conversation. But it is 
legally allowed (at least in my country, in the USA it might be 
un-american?).

I think Olin's license is similar is spirit to my Wisp648 firmware: Do 
with it what you want if it is for your own use, or when used with 
hardware bought from me (or him). But I call this "source available", 
not "open source".

PS I am still looking for a good "open source" license that
- has the usual legal bullshit about the author not being responsible 
for anything
- permits *all* use of the *compiled* version of the code (no need to 
publish modified sources, mention contributors, etc)
- forces the use of that sane license for all distributions of the 
source (modified or not, gratis or for a fee, etc).

I think I saw one once, but forgot where :(

-- 

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist