On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 04:14:13PM -0400, M. Adam Davis wrote:
> On 5/8/08, Mark Rages <markrages@gmail.com> 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.

Where's the license? I looked on EmbedInc's software page, and downloaded
the development software. The only license reference I found was in the
aspic files:

;   ***************************************************************
;   * The contents of this file may be used in any way,           *
;   * commercial or otherwise.  This file is provided "as is",    *
;   * and Embed Inc makes no claims of suitability for a          *
;   * particular purpose nor assumes any liability resulting from *
;   * its use.                                                    *
;   ***************************************************************

There was no separate license file that I could find and no such text in
the .pas files.

> 
> 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.

OSI did. They trademarked 'OSI certified' according to the Open Source
wikipedia entry. They attempted to get a service mark for "Open Source" but
failed in the effort.

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