🚀 go-pugleaf

fellowsd@cs.man.ac.uk (Donal K. Fellows) writes:

[]
> > 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.

Anyone see a flamewar around here? *Blink* did I miss something
interesting?

You'll never get your views to sustain if you can't present them to folks
new to them coherently. Or maybe they're just not worth it, of course.

> 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.

*Shrug*, each to their own. I can't see what there is to get het up about,
myself. GPL is one open-source license, there are others, and open-source
is cool. Next?

~Tim
-- 
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ 
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-	     
| The sun is melting over the hills,         | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | piglet@glutinous.custard.org