On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 21:16 Nigel T <nigel.2...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:44 PM Tobie Langel <to...@unlockopen.com> > wrote: > >> >> I believe that to many open source practitioners, the meaning of open >> source is much broader than the OSD. For example, Ethan Marcotte coined the >> term "nominally open source," to talk about a project that had an open >> source license, but a closed governance model[1], and many rallied behind >> this definition. >> >> Clearly implied there is a broader set of values that are necessary to >> meet the spirit of open source than just following the OSD to the letter. >> > > Nope. What matters is access to the source, not the governance of the > project whether cathedral or bazaar. BOTH are and always have been open > source. > > If I develop my own little tool on my own and gift the source to the world > under an OSI approved license that's all that matters and I DO meet the > spirit of Open Source because that definition is inclusive and not > exclusive as you seem to prefer. >
I’m not arguing this point of view. I’m reporting on a point of view commonly held within the community. I have said nothing as to whether I share this point of view or not (I actually hold a much more nuanced position), and I’d greatly appreciate if you didn’t respond to what you believe that “[I] seem to prefer,” but instead to what I actually wrote. It would really help keep the conversation friendly and productive. Thank you! —tobie
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
