Subject: Re: Dual licensing
From: Rick Moen <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:26:41 -0700

Quoting Marius Amado Alves (

> 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. 

Fortunately, a bunch of us have vast patience, and will be glad to
politely remind said "vast majority", in order to protect and perpetuate
the useful distinction between what is open source and what is not.

(Please remember that OSI was founded by people who invented that term
in the software context.  Simple courtesy would suggest you cease trying
to abuse their core concept.)

> "Commercial open source" is a fairly established term to denote efforts 
> (like the SDC's) to profitably license freely distributable and 
> modifiable source code.

Please cease referring to what is proprietary licensing as "open
source", which is erroneous and misleading.  Thank you.

> Kindly tell what point you feel I'm trying to evade.

That your "SDC licence" plainly is proprietary.

license-discuss archive is at