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-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,18b00985106487ae X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-31 03:31:46 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!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 : persistentuntyped graphs) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:27:02 +0100 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <83I9c.25796$w54.167855@attbi_s01> <40681380.4080901@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1080732564 84151 212.85.156.195 (31 Mar 2004 11:29:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:29:24 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2004 11:26:59.0352 (UTC) FILETIME=[14C57980:01C41713] 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:6690 Date: 2004-03-31T12:27:02+01:00 > > 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?