Scot and I may disagree about URIs ;-), but I really don't have a problem with his use of the term "open source" here. The source is open. In other contexts I might want to be more rigorous about licensing, but publishing the code from a personal project that he might in the future want to charge for is nothing other than praiseworthy.
My own reason for not liking CC for code licensing is that I'm not certain about how well it handles the distinction between plain text code and compiled executable. That may just be my own lack of careful reading though.
Hugh
On Apr 25, 2013, at 8:48 , Nick White <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:21:46PM +1000, Scot Mcphee wrote:
>> I don't actually understand your point.
>>
>> I open source my code as a matter of policy; I've always done that.
>
> My point is that "open source" is a term which is widely understood
> and agreed to have a specific meaning, namely that anyone can use
> the code according to the criteria in the Open Source Definition.
>
> Your code is available to view and use, but with more restrictions
> than people understand "open source" to mean. So calling it "open
> source" is going to mislead people, as you mean something different
> to how the term is generally used for software.
>
> As an aside, I recommend you read a bit more on the rationale for
> why open and free software is important, and consider releasing your
> code under a real open source license like ISC or the GPL.
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html is a good introduction.
|