[OT] What is "open"? [was: Re: [plug] [link] Open Source win in Mass. US]

[James Devenish]

In message <200310220651.01532.leon at brooks.fdns.net>
on Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 06:51:01AM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
> That's "visible" but not "open". It's only "open" if you have enough 
> pieces to make a new one of your own, can change it, and can distribute 
> your changed version without fear of patent, contract or similar 
> arbitrary restrictions.

If you don't put smileys at the end of your jokes, people might think
you actually meant what you said!

PS. I see that you're trying to enforce the use of a meaning of "open"
that is unique to "open software". I conceded to Craig that this jargon
is probably mainstream, now (for specific context of computer software).
So...in the e-mail to which you responded, I was using "open" in the
standard fashion, not in the jargonistic/contextual fashion. I stand
corrected. Although I would still call the arrangement "open", I will
be careful to distinguish it from "open software".


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