Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Feb 2008 15:26 UTC, submitted by Robert Kratky
Permalink for comment 302017
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-01
But this Tetzchner guy is clearly talking about open source vs. open standards as a choice that is worth considering.
Quote from the article:
"If you have a choice between open standards and open source, our choice would always be open standards."
He could have just said that Opera doesn't care for open source instead of setting up bogus choices. That would have been more honest, but it's not good PR.
I think his most sincere comment comes in the end of the same answer:
"and there would be the risk that people would look at our code and run away with it."
That seems to be the real reason why Opera isn't open source, and it has nothing to do with advocating open standards.