On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 08:44:24AM -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Byron Jeff wrote:
> >> But the GPL doesn't give you that freedom without additional
> >> restrictions.
> >
> > It does. As pointed out earlier in the thread, the GPL only deals with
> > modification and redistribution of software. It can be used for any
> > purpose.
> 
> So it doesn't have some kinds of restrictions but does have others.

All software licenses have restrictions.

>  The
> point is that there are still restrictions.  It's funny how it's supposed to
> be "open source" only with their set of freedoms and restrictions.

Each open source license have differing sets of restrictions. However, they
all grant a common set of rights. You can review them in:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

> 
> Again, "open source" means it's open for all to see.

Your definition. However if you pop "open source" into any search engine,
you're simply not going to get any document that has that definition.
You're going to get a point to opensource.org, or to the wikipedia, both
which have the definition and tenants I outlined above.

>  If you call it "free source", then I expect no restrictions.

Again you're going to run counter to a community that's nearly 25 years in
the making. Specifically "free software" will lead you to the FSF and the
GPL.

And as we all well know the GPL imposes significant restrictions.

The only term that has no restritions for software is "public domain".
Public domain software has had its copyright lapse or specifically recinded
by the copyright holder. There are truly no restrictions.

>  Neither my source nor GPL source qualifies for that.

You and Xiaofan have been talking about the GPL and the FSF. It really
doesn't fit into this discussion except that the GPL does fit the Open
Source definition while your license does not.

It seems like you're trying to bait me into saying that your software
should be open source, or under the GPL, or whatever. I firmly disagree. As
I have stated in at least 3 prior posts today, your license makes a lot of
sense. It's helpful for those who wish to hack on EmbedInc programmers or
learn about doing USB stuff on a PIC. It's thoughtfully and generously
thought out. I have absolutely no problem with it.

But trying to change the definition of Open Source is like trying to stop
the tide from coming in: No matter who much you want to do it, you're going
to have a tough time pulling it off.

>  If someone wants a label that allows for their own
> favorite mix of freedoms and restrictions, then they need to come up with a
> better and more descriptive term, and would also need to trademark it to
> keep control over the definition.

I'm not going there. I'm not even saying that you don't have the right to
label your license as open source. But it certainly isn't what everyone
else in that community thinks of as open source.

I think it's time for me to go back to lurking. I'm pretty sure I can't
make my point any plainer. 

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