Subject: Re: Dual licensing
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 15:56:19 -0700

Quoting Marius Amado Alves (amado.alves@netcabo.pt):

> >No, it's fundamentally not open source at all.
> >
> >It may be a fine and useful licence for particular objectives, but
> >please don't call it open source, as it's not that.
> 
> Altough all discussions about the use of the term "open source" always 
> end in "OSI does not own it, it's alright to use it to mean what it 
> literally does.", note that I never say just "open source", but instead 
> say "commercial open source", or "open source, but..."

No, actually, this one pretty much ends with "Please don't refer to
something blatantly non-OSD-compliant as 'open source', if only because
you'll keep being beset by people correcting your error and annoyed at
your persisting in it."

> However I would say the SDC licence *is* "fundamentally" open source, 
> because clause 6 is not the corner stone of open source, is it?

If you would say that, you would be playing games and attempting to
evade the point.

Immediately after my initial reply, I briefly browsed your mail archive,
and it seems as if the group you cite (which appears to include you) is
well aware of this matter, but chooses to promote the misuse of the term
anyway.  I sincerely hope you change your minds, eventually.

Meanwhile:   Please correct the misstatement of fact.  Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,                    Remember:  The day after tomorrow is the third day
Rick Moen                  of the rest of your life.
rick@linuxmafia.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3