Rick Moen (and others) suggest the term "open source" be used only as
defined by OSI. Maybe that would be a good thing, and as I said and
pointed out (and Rick wasn't listening) I never say just "open source"
tout court to mean something different, but life has shown repeatedly
that the vast majority of speakers won't follow the suggestion.
"Commercial open source" is a fairly established term to denote efforts
(like the SDC's) to profitably license freely distributable and
modifiable source code.
However I would say the SDC licence *is* "fundamentally" open source,
because clause 6 is not the corner stone of open source, is it?
If you would say that, you would be playing games and attempting to
evade the point.
Kindly tell what point you feel I'm trying to evade.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
