🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <87n1n8i8eg.fsf@spodzone.pigsty.org.uk>,
Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
> Phillip Lord <plord@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> writes:
>> Tim Haynes <piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote:
>>> Well thanks for answering the question. Er, not. Obviously you
>>> don't know what 'Open' as applied to 'Open Source' means in the
>>> first place, as the GPL doesn't seem particularly restrictive
>>> to me.
>> 
>> Im sure that he does know what "open" means. Its quite 
>> simple.
> 
> (You are? How so?)

He can be sure now, since I assert it to be the case.  :^)

> More to the point, '"open" as applied to "open source"' is *defined*
> quite clearly and brooks no argument nor talk of "attitude", merely
> discussion.

I find this flamewar^Wdiscussion to be exceedingly tedious, since it
has been done to death in many groups for years.  Nobody's going to
change their position now, and it doesn't even have the TIC-value of
the emacs vs. vi holy war.  It just makes a lot of people very angry
at each other when they should just let go.  Me included.

However, as a final word on the matter, it seems to me that the two
sides of this debate both feel that the other is simply not living in
the real world.  I tend towards the non-GPL side of the debate due to
not feeling that the concealment of code is necessarily a bad thing.

Donal (stopping now before I get worked up...)
-- 
Donal K. Fellows    http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/    fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
   be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
   borders.  -- David Parsons  <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>