Message from discussion
Castle What?
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.plusnet!news.plusnet.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:51:06 -0500
From: "Ste (news)" <st...@revi11.plus.com>
Subject: Re: Castle What?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.misc
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:51:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4f8d842e5csteve@revi11.plus.com>
References: <4f8cf8e48ddave@triffid.co.uk>
<78cafb8c4f.martin@bach.planiverse.com>
<c5fffe8c4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>
<gemini.jz1vpi004v71c02ow.ray@magray.freeserve.co.uk>
<4f8d42a2e4invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
<240466d4-cf97-4848-96d8-e36b2ef8bcb9@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<al3Lj.31141$Ff4.30907@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>
<4f8d58423ajohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
<Ek4Lj.47900$5i5.47867@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>
<1cac535b-40e5-4eff-81b2-c0f7a8f803b9@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>
<Ky5Lj.48077$5i5.7737@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>
<a76fb1ed-6b3c-4cd0-8425-97384796ccf8@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <UraLj.60361$jH5.23231@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
User-Agent: Pluto/3.04d (RISC-OS/5.11) NewsHound/v1.50-32
Organization: None
Lines: 26
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.174.133.167
X-Trace: sv3-X3X9AWhTgnx1kmU4ulRLWoYzP1L+ojWlAEiNdWBOh0eMg58t+LILreFcvcoQ9kHMGDPB/yU12/KvCSR!Jzi6Qh22ppoOhHapEzrA1X0cxdclboGJFsz37D7rIAuPp6Ma8ptm4lbII8WHgKmZq3M=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@plusnet
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@plusnet
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.38
In article <UraLj.60361$jH5.23...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> My argument is thus: "Open source" is a vague and overloaded term, but by
> the most generous and meaningful definition, anything whose source is
> available for study can be referred to as such.
I agree - if that wasn't the case, what on Earth _is_ the overarching term
you can use to describe software whos source is open such that anyone can
look at it or contribute changes?
However, I recognise that such concerns don't trouble the average Joe so
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).
"Shared source" is a horrible term, IMHO. I'd much rather we (all) were
realistic in calling open sources "open source" (as opposed to "closed
source") and free (libre) software "free software".
Hey ho.
Steve
--
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
|
