Subject: RE: Definition of open source
From: "Michael R. Bernstein" <>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:27:32 -0800

On Sun, 2004-11-07 at 05:30, Alan Rihm wrote:
> No appologies needed. Your response was clear. Note that I'm not looking
> to be convinced or to convince you. I started with an observation (based
> on perception) regarding the current definition and licenses. Then I
> presented a business case that warrants a discussion.

You haven't said what about your business case is not satisfied by
strategies based on current OSI-approved licenses.

Shall I assume that you now understand that these licenses are suitable?

>  Since this is
> clearly not a case of right or wrong, but rather opinion, I'm happy with
> the responses provided so far.

At least some of your opinions were obviously based on erroneous
assumptions on matters of fact, which I (and others) have attempted to
correct. So far, you seem to have ignored those corrections as *also*
being opinion.

I find this curious, to say the least. Are you so wedded to your
conclusion (that the OSI definition of open source needs to change) that
you are unable to re-examine the premises that conclusion is based on?

Michael R. Bernstein <>