It's interesting to watch Michael Tiemann lay claim to the one, true definition of 'open source': only projects complying completely with the OSI license are open source. If this were a legal issue and the definition was argued in court, the OSI might have a chance. But when it comes to trying to freeze the definition of a term in common usage, they don't stand much of a chance.
My own experience with talking to end users about licensing mirrors those of Mitchell Ashley and the audience of Slashdot: most people just care that the software is free and open, not which licensing model is used. The majority of the people I've talked to face to face at events understand why a company wouldn't want to use the OSI license. As long as the impact on the end user is the same in the end, meaning if they get the software for free and can look at the source code themselves, they aren't too concerned with the license. There have been exceptions, people who are hard line OSI or BSD license advocates and I respect those people for their opinions. But they've been in the minority.
Cobia's license isn't OSI complaint. But our source code is open and the software is free. Call it open source, community source or something else, the effect on the end user is the same.
Recent Comments