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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,18b00985106487ae X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-28 08:47:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Marius Amado Alves" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untypedgraphs) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:45:40 -0800 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1080492398 61420 212.85.156.195 (28 Mar 2004 16:46:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:46:38 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2004 16:46:26.0598 (UTC) FILETIME=[3619DC60:01C414E4] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6636 Date: 2004-03-28T16:45:40-08:00 > > [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.