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,LOTS_OF_MONEY 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 11:43:24 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!cyclone1.gnilink.net!cyclone.rdc-nyc.rr.com!news-west.rr.com!news.rr.com!cyclone.kc.rr.com!cyclone2.kc.rr.com!news2.kc.rr.com!twister.socal.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Sender: kst@nuthaus.mib.org 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> From: Keith Thompson Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:43:23 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.91.248.166 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.socal.rr.com 1077824603 66.91.248.166 (Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:43:23 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:43:23 PST Organization: RoadRunner - West Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5870 Date: 2004-02-26T19:43:23+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic writes: > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > The point is that opened sourced compilers allow anyone at > > any time to "port" a compiler (for the small cost of > > downloading). A proprietary compiler _usually_ does not > > come without a larger cost, unless it has been pirated. > > Possibly for some definitions of "Open Source". In my mind, "Open > Source" does not have to mean "At little to no cost". I might give you > a program with source code and charge you $10,000 and not permit you > to share the program or source with another person or company. Is that > still "Open Source"? You still have the source and you may still be > permitted unrestricted use within your business. Must the definition > require that I allow you to redistribute it? Must it require that I > not charge you any money? > > MDC (I've deleted comp.lang.c from the newsgroups list; this is off-topic there.) 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. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"