Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Oct 2010 12:23 UTC
Permalink for comment 445925
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 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Of course I get that [what this defintion might imply], but that doesn't make it any more true. We've seen many trials of redefining open&free&co over the years from various companies, by keeping to use it in contexts it doesn't [shouldn't] fit, but calling something open just because it's being used by most, doesn't fit with anything I would call open. It's just simple availability, in that it is available to be used and to develop for it by anyone, which is nice in itself, still doesn't make it open.