[snip] http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php
The people behind the term 'open source' would disagree. Whether or not you consider it 'official' the thrust of 'open source' as a descriptive term is firmly behind things being 'free' as well as allowing 'access to source code'. [/snip] And I, for one, think that this is unfortunate. It should have been better considered and written. That this was no ideal, however, did not prevent open source developers from licensing their products for a fee...so the industry itself leveled the playing field. [snip] I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it - personally I'd rather see the community come up with another catchy phrase that sginifies that source code is available with a product which is commercial in nature, yet not 'open source'. [/snip] Why can't Open Source mean just that? Then you can have two categories of Open Source; Free with free distribution and Licensed (charged for) with distribution rules. There are Closed Source applications available for free, and CS apps available Licensed (charged for). So why should it be different for Open Source (save for the bone-headed mistake in the definition)? Jay -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
