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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-26 16:50:32 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Starner Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity. (Debian GNU/Linux)) Message-ID: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com> <2460735.u7KiuvdgQP@linux1.krischik.com> <54759e7e.0402081525.50c7adae@posting.google.com> <403DEA53.8010602@noplace.com> <403E7503.1050403@noplace.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:50:31 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.72.72.105 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1077843031 12.72.72.105 (Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:50:31 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:50:31 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5873 Date: 2004-02-27T00:50:31+00:00 List-Id: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:36:58 +0000, Marin David Condic wrote: > Well, I don't know if anybody has trademarked "Open Source". They tried. > But "Open" and "Source" > without some kind of (tm) next to it sort of implies that when one has > proper access to a given program, that they can "Open" or otherwise see > & modify the source code for the program. Just like Republican means you believe in a republic, or Democratic means you believe a democracy? Just the fact that those words are capitalized is enough to hint that they don't mean exactly what they say. > Since there are all sorts of different licenses that seem to pass muster > as being "Open Source" licenses (by those who wish to own the term), > there doesn't seem to be enough consistency to say there is some single > definition. We could try the definition . Any case, that's like saying because there's all sorts of different things that seem to pass muster as programming languages, that there's no single definition for programming language. There may be some discussion on the edges of the definition (is HTML a programming language? Is sed?), but there's certainly a common understanding of what it means.