Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:45:37 +0900

>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Bodo <rsb@ostel.com> writes:

    Rich> I use "source available" to describe source code that is
    Rich> freely available,

Much "free software" is not "source available" in that sense.  Until
about a year ago, for example, GNU Emacs betas were not "source
available" in that sense, although if you could get your hands on it,
it was covered by GPL.  More seriously, the "ASP loophole" is being
proposed regularly as a way to claim freedom while not distributing
your source.  Then there are the cases where The Kompany (maybe Cygnus
too?) have sold enhancements to GPL programs, but the customer wanted
to maintain their own monopoly position so the enhancements never
became available to the general public.

Also, although I agree with your definition, until you trademark the
phrase :-) Microsoft can say "if you've got the bucks, you can have
the source; we're 'source available' too."  "Published source" is a
little more definitive, although awkward.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.