1 Jul
2006
1 Jul
'06
9:44 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 00:43 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:09:42PM -0400, Dave
Robillard wrote:
Give me a break, you and I and everyone else on this list know what
"open source" means.
Whether or not you agree with the licensing
practise, calling it "open
source" is as misleading as calling MS shared source "open source".
Defend the license/exception if you want, but don't intentionally
mislead people about the licensing terms.
If the source is available for everyone to read, then it is open
according to the normal meaning of those words in English. What is
misleading is to attach any other meaning to them. It's a typical
marketeer's trick to redefine words or concepts that have a clear
an established meaning, and IMHO that's a disgusting practice. Besides that, DR is broadcasting plain lies. There is
nothing in
the Linuxsampler licence nor in that infamouse README that should
impede you using it for an album or concert you sell commercially.
Did you even look at the webpage before deciding to troll me this
pathetically? Creating something to sell is obviously "commercial use".
Duh.
Redefine "open source" all you like, LS is not "open source" by the
almost universally accepted definition of that term (the OSI one).
That's the point I wished to make, it is an irrefutable fact, and it's
been made, so I'm done with this conversation.
-DR-