[OT] What is Open Source?

[Andrae Muys]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote in message news:<87vgaswc1s.fsf at tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>...
> >>>>> "David" == David Mertz <mertz at gnosis.cx> writes:
> 
>     David> There is nothing very difficult (and nothing -at all-
>     David> ambiguous) in here.
> 
> Nothing is difficult or ambiguous for any True Believer.  It is true
> that if you define the issues narrowly as you have, there is nothing
> difficult or ambiguous.
> 
> Those of us seeking truth, on the other hand, often must accept that
> multiple definitions and opinions are current, and try to adapt to
> others' points of view to further communication.

On the other hand, in this particular instance the parties concerned
have spent substantial effort defining the terms.  There is very
little ambiguity in the terms themselves.  Opinions on the relative
worth, and sustainability of Open Source and Free Software are
subjective and continue to be discussed extensively.  However to
attempt to suggest that the terms themselves have not been well
defined is dishonest.  To attempt to cast someone who objects to this
as some raving idealogue, and thereby dismiss them with casual wave
handling as a self declared 'seeker of truth' (tm) is the most
appalling piece of intellectual hypocracy I have seen for some time.

Andrae Muys