[time-nuts] Open source

Mike S mikes at flatsurface.com
Fri Dec 7 22:45:40 UTC 2012

On 12/7/2012 5:26 PM, Scott McGrath wrote:
> Well the GPL crowd has kind of conflated open source with code
> licensed under the GPL.  And yes I have met Richard Stallman on many
> occasions. And I'm sure he would also disagree on my definition of
> open source

You're confusing the two. Stallman promotes Free Software (simply put,
libre, not like beer). GPL code is open source code. Open source doesn't 
have to be GPL.

You're certainly free to have your own, unique, definition of "open 
source," but don't expect it to be understood by others.

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell 
you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

> Heck under those terms code released under the BSD license does not
> qualify as 'open source'.

Yes, it does. http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

Note that the definition of open source doesn't prohibit the code from 
being re-distributed under a non-open license, as the BSD allows, and 
the GPL prohibits. BSD is open source, but the BSD license allows one to 
modify the code, then sell it commercially and/or keep the code 
proprietary (i.e. distribute additional terms) - it's that modified code 
would no longer be considered open source.

More information about the time-nuts mailing list