[plug] [link] Open Source win in Mass. US

[Craig Ringer]

> In message <20031021024415.GA7866 at mail.guild.uwa.edu.au>
> on Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:44:15AM +0800, James Devenish wrote:
> 
>>Be careful of your interpretation of "open", Ben.
> 
> For "Ben", substitute "Bret and Craig". And believe it or not, that
> *wasn't* the most bizarre random name substitution that I've ever done.

In this case, the meaning of "open source" in the article appears to be 
the one that most will have been expecting. Whether that's the basis of 
the legislation, I don't know - it depends on the article writer's 
interpretation of the legislation.

I've personally never heard "open source" used to refer to sofware where 
source code is accessable but highly restricted in use (ie MS learning 
programs, various vendors' university source access). The assumption 
that this article means open source in the http://opensource.org/ sense 
seems reasonable.

What I was saying stands, however. It strikes me as a singularly bad 
idea to require "open source" software. Access to the source code seems 
reasonable, but at least in the usage it seems to have now "open source" 
tends to imply some rights to modify and/or distribute the software.

Craig Ringer


_______________________________________________
plug mailing list
plug at plug.linux.org.au
http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug