Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
I've never heard that term to describe something which is not open source, before now. My employer sells commercial open source software. It fully complies with the OSD--in fact, it is under the BSD license. I think that using the term "commercial open source" to describe something which is not open source is deceptive. I would correct anybody who tried to use it in that manner. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
