On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:09:42PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> Whether or not you agree with the licensing practise, calling it "open
> source" is as misleading as calling MS shared source "open source".
> Defend the license/exception if you want, but don't intentionally
> mislead people about the licensing terms.
If the source is available for everyone to read, then it is open
according to the normal meaning of those words in English. What is
misleading is to attach any other meaning to them. It's a typical
marketeer's trick to redefine words or concepts that have a clear
an established meaning, and IMHO that's a disgusting practice.
Besides that, DR is broadcasting plain lies. There is nothing in
the Linuxsampler licence nor in that infamouse README that should
impede you using it for an album or concert you sell commercially.
-- FA Follie! Follie! Delirio vano e' questo!Received on Sun Jul 2 04:15:02 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 02 2006 - 04:15:02 EEST