From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-26 14:36:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <403E7503.1050403@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com> <2460735.u7KiuvdgQP@linux1.krischik.com> <54759e7e.0402081525.50c7adae@posting.google.com> <403DEA53.8010602@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:36:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.7.94 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1077835018 209.165.7.94 (Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:36:58 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:36:58 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5871 Date: 2004-02-26T22:36:58+00:00 List-Id: Well, I don't know if anybody has trademarked "Open Source". Certainly there are those who want the term to mean something kind of specific and have attempted to control the terminology. But "Open" and "Source" without some kind of (tm) next to it sort of implies that when one has proper access to a given program, that they can "Open" or otherwise see & modify the source code for the program. I think that solves a number of problems for some things while creating others - but basically you *do* have "Open" source even if you have to pay for it. Since there are all sorts of different licenses that seem to pass muster as being "Open Source" licenses (by those who wish to own the term), there doesn't seem to be enough consistency to say there is some single definition. If I wish to surrender to the word scientists, perhaps some other term can be used when the owner of some software is willing to give you the source but expects some kind of remuneration for doing so or has other capitalistic restrictions that don't allow the end user to give away someone else's intellectual property. ;-) MDC Keith Thompson wrote: > > If you can't freely redistribute it, it isn't open source under the > commonly meaning of the term. There's a strict definition at > www.opensource.org. Even if you don't accept that definition, there's > a general consensus that open source doesn't just mean access to the > source code. > > That's not to say that there's anything wrong with charging money for > access to source code and disallowing redistribution; it's more than > what a lot of vendors do. But calling such a distribution scheme > "Open Source" would be misleading. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ======================================================================