Subject: Re: Definition of open source
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 16:13:29 -0800

Quoting Zvezdan Petkovic (zvezdan@CS.WM.EDU):

> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:59:06AM -0500, James Harrell wrote:
> > believe that the time has come for Commercial Open Source
> 
> Commercial Open Source is an oxymoron.

{sigh}  No, it's not.  _Proprietary_ open source is an oxymoron.

If I sell you a copy of Ubuntu Linux on CD, that is an act of commerce.
Ergo, the object of that transaction is, in that sense, commercial
software.  However, except for a couple of firmware image files and 
some typefaces, all of the contents are under open source licences.
Therefore, it is commercial open-source software.

-- 
Cheers,                 There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who 
Rick Moen               know ternary, those who don't, and those who are now 
rick@linuxmafia.com     looking for their dictionaries.  -- Ron Fabre