Submission + - Richard Stallman says No to Mono. (fsf.org) 4
"Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.
.... This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. ... [writing and using applications in mono] is taking a gratuitous risk.
RIAA Brief Attacks Free Software Foundation 554
Self-Encrypting Hard Drives and the New Security 205
Quick Boot Linux Hopes To Win Over Windows Users 440
Comment canceling my moderation (Score 1) 532
Submission + - Draconian DRM revealed in Windows 7 4
Website Security Without Breaking the Bank? 195
The Case For Supporting and Using Mono 570
RIAA and BSA's Lawyers Taking Top Justice Posts 377
Why Your Pop-Up Blocker Doesn't Work Anymore 653
In-Depth With the Windows 7 Public Beta 785
What Restrictions Should Student Laptops Have? 1117
Comment Re:the most cost effective applications on the mar (Score 1) 348
The one being wrong is still you. You're the only one who calls being able to see the source code of a program you purchase a license for "open source". I'm sure getting the source code of a program that's written in an interpreted language (PHP in this case) must be a novel and great thing to you, but rest assured it isn't for the rest of the world. "Use it however you like" and "the only thing you can't do, is give it to non-customers" contradict each other.
Also, you've failed to show any evidence of anyone but you using this useless "definition" of the term.
As for my first and second sentences, you aren't being picky -- you are being dense. A prerequisite for OSI approval of specific licenses is conforming to the OSD, but this doesn't make these two things equal. Approval is an actual process involving the examination of a license; conforming to the definition follows from licensing and its practical application. (Software patents might apply, for example.) To make it easier to understand, a license might conform to the OSD and yet not be OSI approved; and hopefully all OSI approved licenses conform to the OSD -- which makes "OSI approved" a subset of "open source".
Comment Re:the most cost effective applications on the mar (Score 1) 348
My explanation wasn't that a product must be OSI approved to be open source. In fact, I haven't explained it yet, so here it goes: "open source" is what complies with the Open Source Definition.
By the definition you're apparently working with, any source is open, as if it can't be opened, it can't even be compiled. This makes your definition meaningless. Unless you can provide a meaningful alternative definition to the term "open source" that has actually been ever used by anyone but you, I'll be forced to believe that you're trolling me.