Subject: Re: Subscription/Service Fees - OSI Intent
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:34:22 -0800

begin David Davies quotation:

> That's a great point that everyone can respect.  But who decides what
> the definition of Open Source is ?

http://www.opensource.org/osd.html does, because:

1.  It's the only clear yardstick we have, and 
2.  The OSI got there first.

If you want a concept that means something else, kindly avail yourself
of the huge combinatorial possibilties that the Roman alphabet affords,
and invent some other name.
 
> If that is the meaning of Open Source shouldn't it be spelt out a
> little better in the OSD ?

I don't know:  It's seemed to bear up very well over the years.  Only a
few people have failed to grasp the spirit of the document, even while
arguing over the letter of it.  Of course, OSI _certifications_ ensures 
in part that "holes" in the literal text cannot be used to pull a fast
one over the open-source community -- e.g., attempting to justify
shareware licensing.

> "Quite a few people on this List" do not necessarily represent the OSI
> nor can they (or the OSI really) dictate what is understood by the
> term Open Source.

Indeed, you could always try appealing to the "silent majority":  It
worked for Nixon.

-- 
Cheers,                                      Right to keep and bear
Rick Moen                                  Haiku shall not be abridged
rick@linuxmafia.com                           Or denied.  So there.