From: "Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
Subject: Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistentuntyped graphs)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:27:02 +0100
Date: 2004-03-31T12:27:02+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mailman.178.1080732563.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: pan.2004.03.31.07.23.59.454490@email.ro
> > That's what I and others do. I don't want a new term.
>
> Of course not. You want the popular word with good connotations
> attached to you, whether or not you fit the definition.
A certain interpretation of 1/10 of a certain definition against a certain
phrasing of a principle.
As I said the phrasing might change.
I whish I had a percentage of people who get this impression of 'bad will'
from the SDC Conditions.
Note the Conditions do not contain the term "open source".
> > In sum I believe we don't need a new term because
> > commercial open source is simply open source i.e. requiring commercial
use
> > to cut a special deal is completely orthogonal to the open source main
> > tenets. The only problem is that current licenses e.g. GPL are badly
phrased
> > and *unintendly* make selling open source *software* (not support or
mugs)
> > unpractical.
>
> Not at all. It was something done very intentionally.
Sure, GPL is perfect. 80% of people use, so it must be, right? Think for
yourself, man. And/or see the discussions in OSI, SDC and other fora.
> > Note selling open source software is a possibility stated in open source
/
> > free software commentary texts.
>
> Right, just like ACT does.
Just like ACT does what? Sell open source software? They don't. They sell
support.
> There are many people who make a profit from
> selling open source software under the GPL;
Nobody profitably sells open source software under the GPL. They sell suport
and coffee mugs.
> Let's be honest; for all the talk about the words not being a trademark,
> if ESR had not came up with open source as a synonym for free software,
> would you honestly be using it here today?
Irrelevant.
> Are you actually using it in an
> older meaning, or just using it because it sounds cool and will attract
> people?
I use it to quickly convey the meaning. And not any older one. What do you
find in the SDC Conditions that is so against it?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-31 11:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-23 20:39 [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs Marius Amado Alves
2004-03-24 7:42 ` Preben Randhol
2004-03-24 17:37 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-03-24 10:08 ` Preben Randhol
2004-03-24 13:01 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-03-28 15:38 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) Jacob Sparre Andersen
2004-03-28 22:10 ` tmoran
2004-03-29 12:16 ` Marin David Condic
2004-03-29 13:08 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-03-29 14:02 ` Marin David Condic
2004-03-31 7:35 ` David Starner
2004-03-31 11:27 ` Marius Amado Alves [this message]
2004-03-30 2:46 ` Stephen Leake
2004-03-30 11:54 ` Marin David Condic
2004-03-30 15:07 ` Licensing issues Florian Weimer
2004-03-30 17:56 ` Georg Bauhaus
2004-03-31 0:07 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-04-03 17:10 ` Florian Weimer
2004-03-31 7:36 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) David Starner
2004-03-31 12:27 ` Marin David Condic
2004-03-31 14:16 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-04-01 16:48 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped Robert I. Eachus
2004-03-30 18:53 ` Larry Kilgallen
2004-03-31 12:31 ` Marin David Condic
2004-03-29 0:45 ` Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untypedgraphs) Marius Amado Alves
2004-04-01 17:09 ` Licensing issues Jacob Sparre Andersen
[not found] ` <200403241301.01079.maa@liacc.up.pt>
2004-03-24 19:27 ` [Announce] Mneson Manual Marius Amado Alves
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox