On Wednesday 14 November 2007, djgoku wrote:
On Oct 31, 2007 12:41 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Oren Beck wrote:
Open Standard.
2 words that are being abused or distorted.. Either singly or as a "self qualifying " term.
Open means what it says and says what it means.
Actually, "Open" in "Open Source" is distorted. All it *really* implies is that the code is available. It does not imply that you have the legal "right" to redistribute it, modified or not. Hence why "Free software" not only predates "open source", but is more accurate given the correct definition of "free" (which is different from "free of charge", even if the latter is incorrectly abbreviated as "free" often).
GPL is Free of Charge, and open source. GPL is in no way _free_.
BSD variants/Public Domain is Free as in free to do what you want, and open source.
GPL is free enough.
BSD is "too" free in that it gives you the ability to be a jerk. Nor is it necessarily open source-- someone could easily license a binary under the BSD license.