Linked by Brynet on Thu 15th Jul 2010 16:55 UTC
Permalink for comment 433698
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 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-09-27
As for the community in the foundry, well there one or two active people.
It seemed more like a PR stunt.
Exactly, it was never open source by the most widely known definition, that is, OSI open source. I think that calling "open source" what is more often called "shared source" is just creating confusion. I remember the RiscOS guys did the same.
Actually, it's much preferable for the source to be closed, because with "shared source" there's more risk they can wrongly or falsely accuse someone of copyright infringement, whereas that's not the case when the source is not available.