Subject: Re: open source definition
From: John Gilmore <>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:19:45 -0700

> >							 My belief is
> > that there is merit to requiring source availability without
> > restricting commercialization.

[he means proprietariness.]

This aspect of the term "open source" has already caused confusion
among some of our friends.  Judi Clark reported in the NetAction
newsletter on the open source workshop.  A large paragraph in her
report was how NCSA had built the first graphical web browser as open
source software, etc etc.  Unfortunately it was untrue.  You could get
source code matching some of NCSA's binaries, but you had no right to
do anything commercial with it.  It wasn't Open Source Software.  But
everyone seems to be confused and think it is, since they provided
source code.  The part they forgot was the "Open".