Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untypedgraphs)

["Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>]

> > [Regarding SDC Conditions, the licensing terms of Mneson,
> > http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson]
>
> > It is open source, but no, not OSI-compliant.
>
> Please don't use the term �open source�, if you don't mean it.

*I mean it.* But OK, I'll refrain from using it to give a top level
explanation of the licensing terms spontaneously. This probably implies I
won't be giving such spontaneous explanation at all, because the only
alternate term I know is "free software" and I don't want to employ it. But
note the explanation above was not the spontaneous one. It was a reply to
some request for explanation. In those case I will continue to use the term
open source liberally, accompanied by the explanation. I know this might
give me a "reputation". Too bad. My commitment is to reason, not to what
"people say". There are alternate views to the open source business model
than selling support and cofee mugs. OSI did not invent open source. Nobody
invented open source, actually. We're making the rules as we go along.
Nobody is perfect. GPL, particularly, is rather defective.