25 Jan
2008
25 Jan
'08
10:15 p.m.
Am Samstag, 26. Januar 2008 01:06:04 schrieb Dave Robillard:
The one that points directly to the OSI definition in
the first
sentence, and says "If the latter is denied the license is categorized
as a shared source license." you mean?
[snip]
It's simple: That is why LS is neither Open
Source or Free Software *
Claiming otherwise is intentionally misleading deception.
Complaining about it (again...) is just a stupid waste of time.
We know all of this already. Move on, list, move on. ;)
So what? You want to continue to discuss it or to end it? Make your decision.
And no, the OSI definition is mentioned in the 2nd sentenced. The 1st sentence
sais "Open source is a set of principles and practices on how to write
software, most importantly, the source code is openly available.".
And on top of it, there's even a link: "For other uses, see Open source
(disambiguation).": "Open source denotes that a product includes permission
to use its source code, design documents, or content (...)."
So get it: there is NOT only one definition of the term "open source" when
standing alone. Like with many unspecific short terms, different people have
different opinions of those short terms. So don't talk like your opinion
would be "fact". And think about it, if we would "intentionally
mislead"
people, like you're accusing us, we would definitely not place a link on our
site to the various definitions of "open source" including your praised OSI
definition.
But I agree with you in one thing: it's really nonsense to discuss this issue
any further.
CU
Christian