Subject: Re: Definition of open source
From: 'Rick Moen' <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 15:08:47 -0800

Quoting Alan Rihm (alan@centraview.com):

> Rick, I'm not sure why there is so much anger in the room....

Suggestion:  Cease trying to distract attention from the issue and
correct the error of referring to a clearly proprietary licence as "open
source" on your company's Web pages.  You will then notice cessation of
"anger" towards you and your firm, having removed the cause.

> ("I smell a second rat in this conversation"...that is just ignorant). 

I'm sorry, but I think my point speaks for itself.

> I believe in open source based on today's terms.

But the company of which you're founder and CEO doesn't?  I don't know
what particular sort of doubletalk that is, but it's really rather
beside the point.

> It got us here after all, but surely it is healthy to discuss
> alternative views. You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to
> be rude.

Your _views_ are not, in and of themselves, a problem (although the
cheesy special-pleading polemics were a bit insulting).  By contrast,
your firm's public statements are a problem.  So:  Your company Web
site's front page (http://www.centraview.com/) and a linked press
release page (http://www.centraview.com/press_2004oct12.html) refer to
the above-mentioned proprietary licence as "open source".  That is a
deceptive misstatement of fact.  Please correct the error by removing
your firm's false claim of open source licensing.  Thank you.

-- 
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