Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 20:35 UTC
Permalink for comment 472706
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 05/19/13 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-04-03
Well you'd think "opensource" would actually mean that the source is openly available wouldn't you, you know, open ... source. Goes to show that if you're under the right license your project can be closed tighter than a fish's rectum and you can still call it opensource.
And of course Thom is going to find this to be all ok - this is Google, purveyor of all that is good, wholesome and right in the world...