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 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 14:52:11 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!news.belwue.de!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed.nextoneserver.com!news.jgaa.com!news.hacking.dk!pnx.dk!munin.nbi.dk!not-for-mail
From: Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping
Date: 26 Feb 2004 23:52:09 +0100
Organization: Munin
Sender: sparre@sparre.crs4.it
Message-ID: <pl7jy98ndy.fsf@sparre.crs4.it>
References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org>
 <mailman.3.1076142690.295.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <m3isij11u4.fsf_-_@insalien.org>
 <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com>
 <2460735.u7KiuvdgQP@linux1.krischik.com>
 <54759e7e.0402081525.50c7adae@posting.google.com>
 <m3fzdlyrh1.fsf@insalien.org>
 <MPG.1a93b9e1697e47b4989c8c@news.clspco.adelphia.net>
 <c0e5su$33j$1@titan.btinternet.com>
 <MPG.1a949d1f4c022540989c8f@news.clspco.adelphia.net>
 <c0esdi$63s$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <MPG.1a9Organization: LJK Software
 <ybNCxc5scKK4@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <M95%b.8327$ee3.380889@news20.bellglobal.com> <403DEA53.8010602@noplace.com>
 <ln4qtdd3tw.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <403E7503.1050403@noplace.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.241.165.51
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: munin.grove.home 1077835930 15027 80.241.165.51 (26 Feb 2004 22:52:10
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: sparre@munin.nbi.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:52:10 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5872
Date: 2004-02-26T23:52:09+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Marin David Condic wrote:

> 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),

Since they also happened to coin it, I find it somewhat reasonable.

> If I wish to surrender to the word scientists, perhaps some other
> term can be used when the owner of some software is willing to give
> you the source but expects some kind of remuneration for doing so or
> has other capitalistic restrictions that don't allow the end user to
> give away someone else's intellectual property. ;-)

What about using Microsoft's term for that; Shared Source.

Then we know what you are talking about.

Jacob
-- 
"The universe isn't for the likes of me to understand. I only work here."