Subject: Re: Definition of open source
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:27:04 -0500

Alan Rihm writes:
 > It seems to come down to opinions on what open source should be. My
 > opinion is that there is room for another definition.

Sure!  And another name, too: Source-Available Software.  That's the
name for any software where you can get the source but your rights to
redistribute source, binaries, or derivative works may be limited.

But you don't get to redefine "Open Source".

-- 
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com  | Violence never solves
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | problems, it just changes
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 212-202-2318 voice | them into more subtle
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | FWD# 404529 via VOIP  | problems.