Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
- You can verify by compiling the sources yourselves, which you cannot with non-free software. Not even if it is opensource, like the way M$ has offerred the UK government the other day.
By clubbing M$'s "shared source" program with Opensource, you exhibit the same ignorance of Opensource as others have of GPL. Just as others take the word "free" in free software literally, you are taking "open source" literally.
Do read the Opensource definition at least once - http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Could you please explain why we should go out of our way to read definitions by third parties?
X can write a FOO_BAR license agreement and define FOO_BAR as he pleases. X could say "FOO_BAR" means such and such thing. The OSI has chosen to write an "Open Source" definition, inventing new meanings for the expression "Open Source". Please understand that merely because OSI has defined FOO_BAR or Open Source to mean certain things, the expression does not loose its generic meanings. Non-free software can fairly and correctly describe their software as open source, if they do publish source code, and the OSI or anyone else cannot complain about it. Probably the OSI and its friends can claim that the non-free software is not open source within the meaning of their private definitions, which is too narrow to be interesting to us. Open air, open court, open fire, etc. have existed for a long time and there is nothing special about open source.
You could show respect to the posters to this list, while trying to elicit answers to clear your doubts. Try to free your mind - that should help.
You may also try your luck asking the OSI, if the OSI has an open mailing list like this.
I quote:
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
- Free ...
[the redundant stuff snipped by me]