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: 103376,18b00985106487ae X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-30 23:35:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Starner Subject: Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) 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: <83I9c.25796$w54.167855@attbi_s01> <40681380.4080901@noplace.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:35:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.72.71.99 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1080718556 12.72.71.99 (Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:35:56 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:35:56 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6682 Date: 2004-03-31T07:35:56+00:00 List-Id: On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:08:22 +0100, Marius Amado Alves wrote: > 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. > 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. To make that claim is like claiming that forcing you to define your variables in Ada instead of letting them default to integers was unintended; it shows that you don't understand the reasoning behind the whole system. > Note selling open source software is a possibility stated in open source / > free software commentary texts. Right, just like ACT does. There are many people who make a profit from selling open source software under the GPL; just because you don't like how they do it doesn't mean the licenses are "badly phrased" or poorly designed, it merely means that you disagree with how they are designed. 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? Are you actually using it in an older meaning, or just using it because it sounds cool and will attract people?