🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mwron-BDBD2E.21581722072004@news.newsguy.com>,
 MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:

> In article <macdev-47C881.17091222072004@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
>  Miro Jurisic <macdev@meeroh.org> wrote:
> 
> >In article <mwron-CECF2B.16281422072004@news.newsguy.com>,
> > MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:
> >
> >> PowerPlantX  is, was, and always will be OPEN SOURCE, it is just not 
> >> public domain or GPL
> >
> >So you don't mind if I publish all of PPX on my web page?
> 
> That would clearly be a violation of your license.  Please it is silly 
> sophomoric talk like this that always leads to restrictions being placed on 
> licenses to the detriment of all.  We used to have several books included 
> with CodeWarrior until some fools started saying they thought they had the 
> right to print them at kinkos... So don't joke on things like this, it just 
> makes things go sour...

I am not joking. You said PPX is open source. You are wrong, and I am calling 
you on it, because I think it's a cheap marketing trick. You don't get to make 
up what "open source" means, when there is a specific definition that has been 
published by the OSI and adopted by the industry.

The OSI definition literally begins with "Open source doesn't just mean access 
to the source code", and all that MW is giving us with PPX (and all we got with 
PP) is access to source code. Yes, that is significant. No, I don't want you to 
take it away. I do, however, want you to learn what "open source" means, and use 
the term properly, because it does neither MW nor the MW customers any good if 
you claim that PPX is open source when it's not.

meeroh

-- 
If this message helped you, consider buying an item
from my wish list: <http://web.meeroh.org/wishlist>