🚀 go-pugleaf

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? Or have you not read 
the Open Source Definition at <http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php>?

meeroh

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

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...

> Or have you not read 
>the Open Source Definition at <http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php>?

I'm saying you have the source for PowerPlant it is not a closed source 
library.  I am trying to reassure people that are currently using it 
that they could continue to use it and improve it.  I was not speaking 
of "open sourced SOFTWARE" as defined in the site listed above.

However we are considering many options.

Ron

-- 
Metrowerks Community Forum is a free online resource for developers 
to discuss CodeWarrior topics with other users and Metrowerks' staff
        --   http://www.metrowerks.com/community  --

 Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

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>

>
> 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.
>

Is that called "closed source" ?
Actually i'm facing a similar dilemma. I want to make my source available
but not open Source. ( i don't like the openSource idea nor licensing for
various reasons )
What are the licenses available for "closed source" products ?

For now i am just selling my source at a very high price ( people have the
choice of buying a .lib or the source ) , but that's kind of problematic for
people who want to upgrade or modidy the product to suit their needs. ( i
have no objection against that, i just don't want it to go wild , nor for
people to feel like it's free because it's not )

thank you
pat.

MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote: 
| PowerPlantX  is, was, and always will be OPEN SOURCE, it is just not
| public domain or GPL 
 
Miro Jurisic wrote: 
| So you don't mind if I publish all of PPX on my web page? 
| Or have you not read  the Open Source Definition at 
| <http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php>? 
 
Do recall: OpenSource.org does *not* have the authority--or power--to
define unilaterally what the phrase "open source" means. Their "Open
Source Definition" states what *they* mean when they use it, not
necessarily what *other people* mean.
 
As the very same web page also says: 
| The OSI Certified mark is OSI's way of certifying that the license 
| under which the software is distributed conforms to the OSD; the 
| generic term "Open Source" cannot provide that assurance 
 
In other words, even OpenSource.org, the very source of the Open
Source Definition you cite, doesn't claim that something called "open
source" necessarily adheres to the Open Source Definition. Like it or
not, the phrase is a generic, not a trademark; any discussion of "open
source" has to recognize that. Unless someone says "open source as
defined by OpenSource.org", you have no assurance that the
OpenSource.org definition is the one intended.
 
Glen Fisher

In article <bfaa81ec.0407230804.6d0ae18e@posting.google.com>,
 b0ubdk001@sneakemail.com (Glen Fisher) wrote:

> Unless someone says "open source as
> defined by OpenSource.org", you have no assurance that the
> OpenSource.org definition is the one intended.

I have no idea what Metrowerks' definition of "open source" means at 
all. The logical conclusion one can draw, without such a clarification, 
is the common use of the term, which means the OSD. if it's not "open 
source" in the same way as stipulated in the OSD, I think it only fair 
for Metrowerks to expound upon the differences so that people who work 
with OSD code day in and day out know what they're getting into.

So to get back to the point - what good does it do me for PPX to be 
labelled by Metrowkers as "open source"? How does this change anything? 
What about MSL? It's "open source" in the same way as PPX.

-- 
Brad Oliver
bradman@pobox.com.AM_SPAY