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: 103376,18b00985106487ae X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-29 04:16:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <40681380.4080901@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: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) References: <83I9c.25796$w54.167855@attbi_s01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:16:10 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.0.138 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1080562570 209.165.0.138 (Mon, 29 Mar 2004 04:16:10 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 04:16:10 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6645 Date: 2004-03-29T12:16:10+00:00 List-Id: Maybe we need a term to use for software that is open source but doesn't meet the requirements of the owners of the words "Open Source"? What about "Sharable Software" or "Sharable Source" - implying that you get the source code and that you may share the software but possibly with some restrictions. I agree with Marius that those who wish to lay claim to the words "Open Source" have *a* business model, but not the only possible business model. Given that the term has been in use to describe a variety of licenses well before anybody like the OSI decided to lay claim to the words, it is difficult to see how it is possible to start slapping some specialized meaning on it now and expect it to stick. I suppose they could go get a trademark on it and restrict people from sticking "Open Source(tm)" on their software unless it met certain criteria (or claiming that they have an "Ada(tm)" compiler unless it passes a validation suite? ;-) but that wouldn't preclude someone from using the words "open" and "source" next to each other in their common English meaning to describe the fact that the source code is open and visible to the user of the software. MDC tmoran@acm.org wrote: > Two common methods of signaling a special usage of a phrase are to > enclose it in quotes, or to capitalize each word. Neither of those was > done in this case, suggesting the author was not trying to use the term in > its, sometimes, special meaning. Also, if someone wants to restrict usage > of the phrase, they should trademark it. Of course someone might point > out that, prior to Inflation of the Internet, lots of software was made > available on BBSes etc, with source. > > open source open source open source open source open source open source -- ====================================================================== 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 ======================================================================