Subject: Re: Dual licensing
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
Date: 05 Jun 2004 11:07:15 -0400

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> writes:

> Rick Moen (and others) suggest the term "open source" be used only as
> defined by OSI. Maybe that would be a good thing, and as I said and
> pointed out (and Rick wasn't listening) I never say just "open source"
> tout court to mean something different, but life has shown repeatedly
> that the vast majority of speakers won't follow the
> suggestion. "Commercial open source" is a fairly established term to
> denote efforts (like the SDC's) to profitably license freely
> distributable and modifiable source code.

I've never heard that term to describe something which is not open
source, before now.  My employer sells commercial open source
software.  It fully complies with the OSD--in fact, it is under the
BSD license.  I think that using the term "commercial open source" to
describe something which is not open source is deceptive.  I would
correct anybody who tried to use it in that manner.

Ian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3