Comment Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!! (Score 1) 177
FYI
RMS does not care if APSL is Open Source or not, he was only reflecting on the fact that it was not a Linux/GPL. He only seems to point out once again the difference between the Open Source mouvement and the GNU/Linux mouvement. The GNU/Linux mouvement has a more philosophical aspect rather than just using the open source method of development. People could debate the pro and the con betwen the GNU/Linux GPL and the fact of just using the Open Source method of development, and I would personally understand both side. It really depend what you are trying to achieve as a individual or as a company. By using the FSF article, you are clearly confusing people here, and probably not doing too good for the FSF cause. Open Source is just a concept/method of developing a product: it means the source code is open for other people to see and contribute. The rest is policy making and legal stuffs.
My question to you is this:
Why would you want anyone to assume that for a company to be Open Source means that it has to be part of an Open Source Organization such as the Open Source Initiative?
If I followed YOUR ERRENOUS judgement completely bias one could not be a "real" Computer Engineer unless one is registered at the IEEE +_+?
Anyway, Just forget about it and do as I do just enjoy life. Life is too short to be too judgemental.
Peace fellow slashdoter,
from a peaceful and compassionate slashdoter.
RMS does not care if APSL is Open Source or not, he was only reflecting on the fact that it was not a Linux/GPL. He only seems to point out once again the difference between the Open Source mouvement and the GNU/Linux mouvement. The GNU/Linux mouvement has a more philosophical aspect rather than just using the open source method of development. People could debate the pro and the con betwen the GNU/Linux GPL and the fact of just using the Open Source method of development, and I would personally understand both side. It really depend what you are trying to achieve as a individual or as a company. By using the FSF article, you are clearly confusing people here, and probably not doing too good for the FSF cause. Open Source is just a concept/method of developing a product: it means the source code is open for other people to see and contribute. The rest is policy making and legal stuffs.
My question to you is this:
Why would you want anyone to assume that for a company to be Open Source means that it has to be part of an Open Source Organization such as the Open Source Initiative?
If I followed YOUR ERRENOUS judgement completely bias one could not be a "real" Computer Engineer unless one is registered at the IEEE +_+?
Anyway, Just forget about it and do as I do just enjoy life. Life is too short to be too judgemental.
Peace fellow slashdoter,
from a peaceful and compassionate slashdoter.
