> I think that this statement
>=20
> *Is <SOME PROGRAM> Open Source simply because it's written in <SOME
> OPEN SOURCE LICENSED LANGUAGE>?* No. While languages like PHP
> <http://opensource.org/licenses/PHP-3.0>, Perl
> <http://opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-Perl-1.0> or Python
> <http://opensource.org/licenses/Python-2.0> have implementations that
> are licensed under Open Source licenses, that doesn't turn all code writt=
en in
> these languages or run under such implementations into Open Source. The
> code written in such languages or run under such implementations would
> need to be licensed under an approved Open Source license in order to be
> Open Source.
> *From here:  http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero
> <http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero> * Is essentially incorrect for practi=
cal
> purposes.
> No?

My response would be that if I use a compiler or interpreter that I have bo=
ught from XYZ corporation, does this mean that XYZ corporation own the copy=
right of the code I have written? My response would be no, as this is non-s=
ensical in law, but then IANAL.


--=20
Scanned by iCritical.

--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.