|
|
comp.sys.acorn.misc |
In article <UraLj.60361$jH5.23...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, However, I recognise that such concerns don't trouble the average Joe so "Shared source" is a horrible term, IMHO. I'd much rather we (all) were Hey ho. Steve --
Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> My argument is thus: "Open source" is a vague and overloaded term, but by I agree - if that wasn't the case, what on Earth _is_ the overarching term
> the most generous and meaningful definition, anything whose source is
> available for study can be referred to as such.
you can use to describe software whos source is open such that anyone can
look at it or contribute changes?
we've been very careful on the ROOL site to stick to the OSI definition of
"Open Source" and not use it when referring to the bulk of the RISC OS
sources (although you will find that some of it is GPL, some BSD, etc).
realistic in calling open sources "open source" (as opposed to "closed
source") and free (libre) software "free software".
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.