 |
 |
I want to support Hugh's comments. There are many different ways of bringing stuff to the public sometimes for money, sometimes for free, and sometimes for in between. Making a particular form of open source license a shibboleth is unlikely to further the cause of learning. Martin Mueller Professor of English and Classics Northwestern University On 4/25/13 8:40 AM, "Hugh Cayless" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >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.