[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders <syntaxis@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
[2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I personally
believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term "Open Source" will
*still* be more widespread,

Do you have numbers to back the claim that it is more widespread? I thought only English had the free/free ambiguity enough to create a market for the more ambiguous term "open source". I know that the damned term is being imported into other languages, sadly, but I didn't think it had got to the point of majority yet!

If you have no such data, please refrain from that claim. It borders on trolling, given your to-list.

or at least be seen as synonymous with "Free
Software" (as the increasingly popular FOSS [Free/Open Source Software]
concatenation shows)

That is intersection, not equation. It is known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as software patents, are allowed under most definitions of "open source".

MJR/slef     My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Reply to: