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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,e276c1ed16429c03 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada is getting more popular! Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:46:07 +0200 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <4cc4cb65$0$6985$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <5086cc5e-cd51-4222-a977-06bdb4fb3430@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <14fkqzngmbae6.zhgzct559yc.dlg@40tude.net> <8732ea65-1c69-4160-9792-698c5a2e8615@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <4cc60705$0$23764$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc6753c$0$23756$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc71e08$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc87d7a$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: rx94L06a5qReYJRQTebs6g.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.63 (Win32) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14859 Date: 2010-10-27T22:46:07+02:00 List-Id: Le Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:28:57 +0200, Thomas L=C3=B8cke a = =C3=A9crit: > The OSI didn't exist when the term was coined. > > And the concept of "open source" existed decades before the OSI. > > The OSI is the definitive authority on _their_ brand of open source. Yes, but the GPL says nothing different about what Colin Paul pointed ou= t. Ask anyone on any forum if you ever doubt it. Some two years in the past, I came to a conclusion similar as yours, tha= t = is, access to source is valuable, so there is a paradox in saying open = source must be free, because this would mean what is more valuable, valu= es = less than what is less valuable. Ex. if soft one can sell soft X without= = for whatever price, it makes to sense to say that with source the same = soft must be given for nothing, because the soft with source has finally= = more value than the soft without source. On some forum I use to start topics about it, talking about the above, a= nd = adding =E2=80=9Cnot even this makes no sense, but I would even see good = reasons to = sell the soft with source for a bit more fees than without source=E2=80=9D= . Result : big crisis (some near to injuries) all over the place, and peop= le = shouting =E2=80=9Cif this is not free, this is not open source, because = Richard = Stallman said so, and all people though this was a very clever idea (the= y = love him very for that). So try to attack the another way, and replied =E2=80=9Cbut why not try t= o see both = the price and the open-source characteristic apart ?=E2=80=9D I feel ind= eed, price = is a trait and open-source is another trait, and based on this (if this = = were not different things, the same word could be used to express both) = I = asked them : what is the most important for you in, say, Linux : =E2=80=9C= the = price which is zero, or its open-source trait=E2=80=9D. Short talk : imp= ossible to = get a single answer to this question, all replies was of the form = =E2=80=9Copen-source =3D free, why don't you want to say all every one t= ell you here = ?=E2=80=9D. No way to make them understand these are two different trait= s = (technically, these are). Open-source and free are simply synonymous all over the web and in near = to = all minds. Nothing to add, because this is simply no possible talks in that area (a= s = I experienced multiple times). There is a unique opinion, and that is al= l. -- = Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c=E2=80=99es= t pas pour = les chiens.