Subject: Re: Definition of open source
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:37:47 -0800

Quoting James Harrell (jharrell@copernicusllc.com):

> I know Rick's trying to pick a fight, so I won't bite (too much).

Attempt to conveniently change the subject to interpersonal dispute,
noted without further comment.

> The software Rick refers to has never been called "Open Source"
> nor does it claim OSD compliance.

(Feeble attempted capitalisation-based shell game noted in passing
without further comment.)

Let's see:  Start on http://www.copernicusllc.com/ , and pick the link
marked "Open Source".  The top of the linked page says:

   Open-source Products

   Copernicus provides the following open source products to the Miva
   Script developer community at no charge. Developers can download source
   kits for the purpose of compiling, learning and using these libraries
   with Miva Script.

   Miva Script Binary Utilities: MvBinary
   The MvBinary Utilities Library provides binary file I/O for Miva Script
   v4 applications.
   - [Source Kit: Zip Archive]

That "open source" ZIP archive is, of course, exactly the one whose
proprietary license agreement I posted a few minutes ago.

> In many circles outside of this list, the terms "Open Source" and
> "open source" have different connotations.

Like your boardroom, I imagine.  How convenient for you.  But you are 
clearly trying to deceive the public into believing your proprietary
software to be open source; hence the objection.

I'll be glad to talk details of open source licensing questions with you
after your firm corrects that grotesque misrepresentation.