[Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs

[Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs

[Marius Amado Alves]

I'm glad to announce the first release of Mneson, a 100% Ada library for 
persistent untyped directed graphs of basic values (integer, string, float).

   http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson

It's open source.

Re: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs

[Preben Randhol]

On 2004-03-23, Marius Amado Alves <maa@liacc.up.pt> wrote:
> I'm glad to announce the first release of Mneson, a 100% Ada library for 
> persistent untyped directed graphs of basic values (integer, string, float).
>
>    http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson
>
> It's open source.

Is it compatible with GPL ?

I know there is a discussion about Ada Community License.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00140.html

-- 
Preben Randhol -------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

()  "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
/\                                   - Isaac Asimov

Re: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs

[Marius Amado Alves]

> > I'm glad to announce the first release of Mneson, a 100% Ada library for
> > persistent untyped directed graphs of basic values (integer, string,
float).
> >
> >    http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson
> >
> > It's open source.
>
> Is it compatible with GPL ?

In what way?

> I know there is a discussion about Ada Community License.
>
>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00140.html

I'll check.

Re: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs

[Preben Randhol]

On 2004-03-24, Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
>> > I'm glad to announce the first release of Mneson, a 100% Ada library for
>> > persistent untyped directed graphs of basic values (integer, string,
> float).
>> >
>> >    http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson
>> >
>> > It's open source.
>>
>> Is it compatible with GPL ?
>
> In what way?

In the way that somebody wanted to use it in a non-commercial (GM)GPL
program.

I don't find any statements about this license. Neither is it on the OSI
list as I can see.

-- 
Preben Randhol -------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/

()  "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
/\                                   - Isaac Asimov

Re: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs

[Marius Amado Alves]

[Regarding SDC Conditions, the licensing terms of Mneson, 
http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson]

> In the way that somebody wanted to use it in a non-commercial (GM)GPL
> program.

If it's non-commercial, just use it.

> I don't find any statements about this license.

There is some amount of discussion and commentary in SDC and OSI fora.

> Neither is it on the OSI list as I can see.

It is open source, but no, not OSI-compliant. The SDC license breaches clause 
6 of the OSD under a certain conservative interpretation of that clause, 
namely one whereby "restrict" means "requiring a separate deal". It seems 
this is the official interpretation by OSI. I'm liberal so I call it open 
source. It does not hurt any other clause of the OSD.

The commercial-open source clash is still an open issue. Never mind. Just use 
it. If it's commercial, tell the authors. They'll cut you a fair deal. You'll 
not have to pay unless you get rich, and then it doesn't hurt you. That's the 
gist of it. Ignore the legalese. "Just do it."

Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Marius Amado Alves wrote:

> [Regarding SDC Conditions, the licensing terms of Mneson, 
> http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson]

> It is open source, but no, not OSI-compliant.

Please don't use the term �open source�, if you don't mean it.  The
OSI definition is the only generally accepted definition of the term
�open source�, that I am aware of.

Jacob
-- 
     My brain needs a "back" button so I can
         remember where I left my coffee mug.

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[tmoran]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 781 bytes --]

>> It is open source, but no, not OSI-compliant.
>
>Please don't use the term �open source�, if you don't mean it.  The
>OSI definition is the only generally accepted definition of the term
>�open source�, that I am aware of.
  Two common methods of signaling a special usage of a phrase are to
enclose it in quotes, or to capitalize each word.  Neither of those was
done in this case, suggesting the author was not trying to use the term in
its, sometimes, special meaning.  Also, if someone wants to restrict usage
of the phrase, they should trademark it.  Of course someone might point
out that, prior to Inflation of the Internet, lots of software was made
available on BBSes etc, with source.

open source open source open source open source open source open source

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[Marin David Condic]

Maybe we need a term to use for software that is open source but doesn't 
meet the requirements of the owners of the words "Open Source"? What 
about "Sharable Software" or "Sharable Source" - implying that you get 
the source code and that you may share the software but possibly with 
some restrictions.

I agree with Marius that those who wish to lay claim to the words "Open 
Source" have *a* business model, but not the only possible business 
model. Given that the term has been in use to describe a variety of 
licenses well before anybody like the OSI decided to lay claim to the 
words, it is difficult to see how it is possible to start slapping some 
specialized meaning on it now and expect it to stick. I suppose they 
could go get a trademark on it and restrict people from sticking "Open 
Source(tm)" on their software unless it met certain criteria (or 
claiming that they have an "Ada(tm)" compiler unless it passes a 
validation suite? ;-) but that wouldn't preclude someone from using the 
words "open" and "source" next to each other in their common English 
meaning to describe the fact that the source code is open and visible to 
the user of the software.

MDC


tmoran@acm.org wrote:

>   Two common methods of signaling a special usage of a phrase are to
> enclose it in quotes, or to capitalize each word.  Neither of those was
> done in this case, suggesting the author was not trying to use the term in
> its, sometimes, special meaning.  Also, if someone wants to restrict usage
> of the phrase, they should trademark it.  Of course someone might point
> out that, prior to Inflation of the Internet, lots of software was made
> available on BBSes etc, with source.
> 
> open source open source open source open source open source open source


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> Maybe we need a term to use for software that is open source but doesn't
> meet the requirements of the owners of the words "Open Source"? What
> about "Sharable Software" or "Sharable Source" - implying that you get
> the source code and that you may share the software but possibly with
> some restrictions.

Several terms have been proposed in OSI and other fora, including
"commercial open source" and "liberal source" I think. "Sharable
software/source" is too close to Microsoft's "shared source". (Please note I
have nothing against Microsoft or shared source or any other Microsoft
practiced business model.)

> I agree with Marius that those who wish to lay claim to the words "Open
> Source" have *a* business model, but not the only possible business
> model...

Nobody legally owns the term yet, and I understand OSI does not intend to do
it.

> ...that wouldn't preclude someone from using the
> words "open" and "source" next to each other in their common English
> meaning to describe the fact that the source code is open and visible to
> the user of the software.

That's what I and others do. I don't want a new term. Reasons include my
believe that SDC Conditions breaching clause 6 of the OSD is a technicality
that will be surpassed eventually by rewording the Conditions (or the OSD),
for example by focusing on commercial use and then *un*restricting
non-commercial use. 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. Or e.g. SDC Conditions are badly phrased and breach clause 6.
Note selling open source software is a possibility stated in open source /
free software commentary texts. Even the famous "free speech, not free beer"
saying encompasses this possibility. Curiously enough the very rationale for
clause 6 is also about commercial use. So it's simply a legal cunundrum that
I believe the open source community will solve enventually.

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[Marin David Condic]

In my mind, "open source" ought to imply that if I acquire the rights to 
use some software, that I also acquire the source code that goes with 
it. I don't think it ought to mean that a) I pay no money for the 
software, b) I may not be restricted from giving it away to others or c) 
I may not be restricted from reselling the software. I can easily see 
reasons I would a) be willing to pay for software, b) agree not to pass 
along copies to others or c) agree not to resell the software in some 
manner.

If I buy software from some small company I may want source to protect 
me in the event that they go out of business, or can't/won't make 
changes I think I need, or I may simply need source because I'm 
incorporating it in a larger work. Why can't it be "Open Source(non-tm)" 
if you sell me a site license for your software and include the source 
code? The important condition here is that I've got "Open" (visible, 
accessible, midifiable, extensible) "Source" (high-level language, 
human-readable, modifiable, recompilable, original design material.)

That I paid you money for it probably implies you shouldn't call it 
"Free(beer)" software. That I can't give copies of it away to others 
probably implies you shouldn't call it "Sharable" software. That I can't 
sell your work to others without some separate deal simply means you 
have not given up ownership of your intellectual property to me - I 
don't know if there is a word to describe that kind of software but 
perhaps there ought to be. "Resellable"? But in my mind, "Open Source" 
ought to imply that I get the source code and can make use of it within 
my organization.

If someone wants to insist that "Open Source(tm)" must have some 
specific meaning beyond what one might infer from what the English 
language definitions of the words might imply, then I think that must be 
done in the context of a specific license that grants specific rights - 
and ought to come with some form of the "(tm)" qualifier. Otherwise, 
people (like me) are going to take the words to mean what they 
customarily mean in English and subject it to our own interpretations & use.

MDC

Marius Amado Alves wrote:
> 
> That's what I and others do. I don't want a new term. Reasons include my
> believe that SDC Conditions breaching clause 6 of the OSD is a technicality
> that will be surpassed eventually by rewording the Conditions (or the OSD),
> for example by focusing on commercial use and then *un*restricting
> non-commercial use. 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. Or e.g. SDC Conditions are badly phrased and breach clause 6.
> Note selling open source software is a possibility stated in open source /
> free software commentary texts. Even the famous "free speech, not free beer"
> saying encompasses this possibility. Curiously enough the very rationale for
> clause 6 is also about commercial use. So it's simply a legal cunundrum that
> I believe the open source community will solve enventually.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[David Starner]

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?

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistentuntyped graphs)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> > 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?

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[Stephen Leake]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes:

> Maybe we need a term to use for software that is open source but
> doesn't meet the requirements of the owners of the words "Open
> Source"? 

That's what capitals are for in English; "Open Source" is the specific
term, "open source" is the general. Get used to it :).


-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[Marin David Condic]

Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim ownership 
of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next to it. Even 
then, the government may not grant the exclusive right because it may 
have been in too much use in that same context before someone wanted to 
own it. (People have been calling things "Open Source" before OSI 
decided they wanted to be the exclusive definer of the term.)

Let's see how far Donald Trump gets with trying to trademark "You're 
Fired!" ;-)

MDC

Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
> That's what capitals are for in English; "Open Source" is the specific
> term, "open source" is the general. Get used to it :).
> 
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: Licensing issues

[Florian Weimer]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes:

> Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim
> ownership of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next
> to it.

This is not the way trademark law works.  You can own a
non-registrated trademark.  If you have to register it before you can
file suit (I don't know if it's necessary), this is nothing more than
just a technicality.

-- 
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it,
voila.fr.

Re: Licensing issues

[Georg Bauhaus]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
: Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes:
: 
:> Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim
:> ownership of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next
:> to it.
: 
: This is not the way trademark law works.  You can own a
: non-registrated trademark.

Do you have any information about the status of
http://opensource.org/trademarks/

Re: Licensing issues

[Marius Amado Alves]

> Do you have any information about the status of
> http://opensource.org/trademarks/

Last time I checked (in OSI's license-discuss forum, a dozen or so moons
ago), there weren't any registrations with any governmental entity or some
such. Neither any intent to do so.

Now that you made me visit the page, I noticed something interesting. Since
they ask to link to the marks on their server, and not copy them, they have
a track of all accesses to all Open Source sites. Cool.

Re: Licensing issues

[Florian Weimer]

Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> writes:

> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> : Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes:
> : 
> :> Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim
> :> ownership of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next
> :> to it.
> : 
> : This is not the way trademark law works.  You can own a
> : non-registrated trademark.
> 
> Do you have any information about the status of
> http://opensource.org/trademarks/

For "OSI Certified" and "Open Source", the USPTO status is "Abandoned:
Applicant failed to respond to an Office action." (At least for the
trademark applications by OSI and SPI, there are lots of other
trademarks containing the phrase "Open Source".)

There are a few related trademarks in German.  There's a recent
application for "Unbreakable Open Source" by SuSE, Soluzione Projekt
GmbH has applied for "Open Source Academy". "CESAD Certified Engineer
for Open Source based Web Services Application Development" and
"CEfOSS Certified Engineer for Open Source Software" are already
registered trademarks, as far as I can see.

-- 
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it,
voila.fr.

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[David Starner]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:54:52 +0000, Marin David Condic wrote:

> Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim ownership 
> of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next to it. 

No; the (tm) is free; it's the (R) that you have to pay for.

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[Marin David Condic]

O.K. Fair enough. But I didn't really want to talk about the 
technicalities of the law - rather the intent. If a term is commonly 
used in a given context, the law isn't going to let you trademark it 
except under possibly some very limited circumstances. The reason is 
that nobody wants to start prohibiting people from using common 
terminology or it starts abridging free speech, becomes impossible to 
police, etc. Consider when Al Franken got sued by Fox TV over use of 
"Fair and Balanced" - Fox got laughed out of court. You can't go around 
prohibiting somebody from using certain words because you don't like the 
way they use them.

As for "Open Source"? What if I put up a website with my definition of 
"Open Source"? Does that make it somehow "official" and allow me to 
insist that anyone using the term do so only if it meets my definition? 
What's the difference between me and OSI? Is it that they are more guys? 
Is it that they have more money? Is it that their web site was up first? 
I don't think any of that would carry much weight in court seeing as how 
people were calling things "Open Source" long before OSI showed up.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to be clear about what they 
mean when describing their software or anything else. I just don't think 
its right to tell someone they can't use some terminology to describe 
their software because it doesn't satisfy someone else who put up a web 
site. Where would we be if we tried to police the same thing with 
respect to calling some body of software "Object Oriented"? Who gets to 
decide the meaning of that term and decide if someone's software meets 
the proper conditions?

MDC


David Starner wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:54:52 +0000, Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> 
>>Yeah, except under law (and for good reason) nobody can claim ownership 
>>of "Open Source" until they pay to have the "(tm)" put next to it. 
> 
> 
> No; the (tm) is free; it's the (R) that you have to pay for.


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> What's the difference between me and OSI? Is it that they are more guys?
> Is it that they have more money? Is it that their web site was up first?

I'd say the latter :-)

Actually the first important website was the FSF's. There's really no
difference between free software as per the FSF and open source as per the
OSI. When you ask the parties they say there's a "political" difference.
What that means exactly I was unable to ascertain. Maybe the FSF was not
willing to promote the OSD. Maybe OSI did not want to be a part of FSF from
the start. So there's two separate institutions now. Actually more, e.g.
Creative Commons. Fortunately they all get along fine, or so it seems. SDC
is supposed to get along fine too, and I believe it does, except for clashes
with the extreme school of though that says open source software is not to
be sold, period.

> ...I just don't think
> its right to tell someone they can't use some terminology to describe
> their software because it doesn't satisfy someone else who put up a web
> site.

It's not right, but they didn't just "put up a web site". FSF and OSI have a
very large user base. That is what makes them important. The snowball
effect. You can "put up a web site", but if it doesn't snowball it won't
make a difference. That's the present situation of the SDC. A snowflake.

I learn a bit more everytime this open source issue comes up. I hope to
learn how to make a clear commercial open source snowflake. One that will
roll. Thanks.

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped

[Robert I. Eachus]

Marius Amado Alves wrote:

> Actually the first important website was the FSF's. There's really no
> difference between free software as per the FSF and open source as per the
> OSI. When you ask the parties they say there's a "political" difference.
> What that means exactly I was unable to ascertain. Maybe the FSF was not
> willing to promote the OSD. Maybe OSI did not want to be a part of FSF from
> the start. So there's two separate institutions now.

The political difference is that FSF intends/wants to create a world 
where you can use only free software.  The OSI focuses on free/open 
alternatives to parts of the unfree software landscape.  Right now there 
is very little difference in practice between the two, but before the 
LGPL (library Gnu public license), there was often a contamination 
effect if you used Gnu tools to create your (commercial) software.  In 
theory this can still happen.  In practice, almost all free software 
tools now use the LGPL (or the GNAT/Ada equivalent that allows generic 
instantiation) on any files where this could be an issue.

So it is still the case that you can create FSF "free software" tools 
that cannot be used to create commercial software.  The OSI rules 
deprecate this possibility.  However, as was said, the two get along 
just fine in practice.  Very few people intentionally "take advantage" 
of this greater freedom (or more restrictive licensing, you choose the 
connotations) offered by the FSF policy.

-- 

                                           Robert I. Eachus

"The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is 
unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such 
an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased or negotiated with. It 
can only be destroyed--and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the business 
at hand."  -- Dick Cheney

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <40681380.4080901@noplace.com>, Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes:
> Maybe we need a term to use for software that is open source but doesn't 
> meet the requirements of the owners of the words "Open Source"?

Who are the "owners" of those words ?

How does one apply for word ownership ?

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped

[Marin David Condic]

Apparently, its done by putting up a web site and enlisting the Word 
Police to go looking for the dissenters. :-)

MDC

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> Who are the "owners" of those words ?
> 
> How does one apply for word ownership ?


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================

Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untypedgraphs)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> > [Regarding SDC Conditions, the licensing terms of Mneson,
> > http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson]
>
> > It is open source, but no, not OSI-compliant.
>
> Please don't use the term �open source�, if you don't mean it.

*I mean it.* But OK, I'll refrain from using it to give a top level
explanation of the licensing terms spontaneously. This probably implies I
won't be giving such spontaneous explanation at all, because the only
alternate term I know is "free software" and I don't want to employ it. But
note the explanation above was not the spontaneous one. It was a reply to
some request for explanation. In those case I will continue to use the term
open source liberally, accompanied by the explanation. I know this might
give me a "reputation". Too bad. My commitment is to reason, not to what
"people say". There are alternate views to the open source business model
than selling support and cofee mugs. OSI did not invent open source. Nobody
invented open source, actually. We're making the rules as we go along.
Nobody is perfect. GPL, particularly, is rather defective.

Re: Licensing issues

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Marius Amado Alves wrote:

> OSI did not invent open source.

As far as I know they actually _did_ invent the term - and came with a
quite precise definition of what they meant by it.

Using "open source" in a different meaning is like calling any random
compiler an "Ada compiler".

Jacob
-- 
"The current state of knowledge can be summarised thus:
 In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

[Announce] Mneson Manual

[Marius Amado Alves]

The Mneson Manual is just out.

   http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/mneson