24 Jan
2008
24 Jan
'08
6:12 p.m.
Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 23:08:05 schrieben Sie:
When people talk about free software and open source,
it goes really
without saying that they talk about free software as defined by the
FSF and open source as defined by the open source initiative, but
obviously not in your case.
You just say:
- "Here, look at it"
..and then say, well, you looked at it, ergo, it's open source.
It's not just that. Most definitions require the software source not only to
be available, but also to be "usable". And that's the case with LS. You can
use the software in binary and in source code form and modify it as you like,
plus you can also redistribute it as long not being in a commercial product.
So it's a lot more than just "you can look at it".
The term didn't even exist before the OSI
definition.
In my opinion, you are misleading people, straight up.
Do we? Our website clearly sais that there are various different definitions
of the term "open source" software with a link to the major ones. Some of
them qualify LS as open source and some don't. We're not hiding anything.
And btw, you were the one who just called us not being part of the open source
community, just because we contributed to one software that has that license
restriction you dont like, ignoring the fact that we contributed to other
projects as well. How do you call that? Not "misleading"? However you call
it, I call it "unfair".
CU
Christian