🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> writes:

  >>  Im sure that he does know what "open" means. Its quite simple.

  Tim> (You are? How so?)  More to the point, '"open" as applied to
  Tim> "open source"' is *defined* quite clearly and brooks no
  Tim> argument nor talk of "attitude", merely discussion.

        I would generally assume that someone is knowledgeable until
I have had evidence that they are ignorant. "Open" as in "Open Source"
is indeed clearly defined. Im sure you are aware that whilst the GPL
falls within the scope of the Open Source Definition there are other
licenses which also fall within this scope, which are less restrictive
that the GPL. 

  Tim> Pity, because it wouldn't survive as any form of
  Tim> "organization" for very long as everyone'd exploit it.

        Indeed I would agree with you. However I would not suggest
that someone who does not agree with you, "clearly knows nothing about
what "open" [...] means". 

  Tim> But then if you didn't want GPL, you have a plurality of
  Tim> alternatives.

        Indeed you have, and some of them are less restrictive than
the GPL. Now what is your argument here?

        Phil