Poll
Question:
How do you define open source?
Option 1: Publically Viewable
votes: 4
Option 2: Above + code distribution permitted
votes: 0
Option 3: Above + binary distribution permitted
votes: 0
Option 4: Above + code modification
votes: 1
Option 5: Above + modifications to the official project (vis-a-vis sourceforge)
votes: 3
Option 6: No License required for use in any form
votes: 2
Option 7: Other (Post Below)
votes: 1
We've been arguing about this on the Bnet bot dev forum for a while -- I'd like to see what everyone says about this. :)
[edit]Changed the subject :) [/edit]
Quote from: Myndfyre on March 02, 2004, 09:29 PM
We've been arguing about this on the Bnet bot dev forum for a while -- I'd like to see what everyone says about this. :)
Well, off the top of my head (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=define%3A+open+source)... :P
"No license required" sounds like public domain. Being open source and being public domain are not mutually exclusive, but they are also not the same thing.
Publically viewable
"Jargon File (4.3.0, 30 APR 2001)"
open source n. common; also adj. `open-source' Term coined in March
1998 following the Mozilla release to describe software distributed in
source under licenses guaranteeing anybody rights to freely use, modify,
and redistribute, the code. The intent was to be able to sell the
hackers' ways of doing software to industry and the mainstream by
avoiding the negative connotations (to suits) of the term "free
software". For discussion of the follow-on tactics and their
consequences, see the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org)
site.