On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:37 PM, B Galliart <bgal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (1) What advocacy information does the Open Source Initiative provide > which indicates it is possible to protect the commercial viability of a > product when honoring the Open Source Definition? > Such a thing is hardly necessary any more. There are so many commercial companies that distribute products that are entirely open source (Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, etc.) that the point should have been made by now. It isn't typically the case that *all* their products are open source, of course. But Red Hat is still pure-play, and so were MySQL and Trolltech before they were acquired, which was done on the basis of their commercial valuation. (2) If someone still is not convinced the OSD is right for their product > but still wants to market their limited license code as Open Source, what > is the downside in doing so? > Being exposed to scorn and objurgation by those of us who care about the proper use of technical terms. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org Humpty Dump Dublin squeaks through his norse Humpty Dump Dublin hath a horrible vorse But for all his kinks English / And his irismanx brogues Humpty Dump Dublin's grandada of all rogues. --Cousin James
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
