|
|
|
|
|
|
by ewan-mclean
1040 days ago
|
|
|
Fans of Free-Software believe the opposite of "closed source" is not "open-source", apparently they believe the opposite is "source available" - but how many people would agree? The USPTO denied a trademark and service mark for "open-source" to the OSI when they applied: "So “open-source” is not and cannot become a trademark" > https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... Why should a 10-point list of "Debian's Free Software Guidelines" for the union of public domain software + FSF style Free Software define the opposite of "closed-source"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... Why should a "Marketing Campaign for for Free Software" dictate what is the opposite of "closed-source" software? https://web.archive.org/web/19991013094510/http://opensource... Why doesn't the OSI focus on it's own trademark:
"OSI Approved License(tm)", a trademark that it actually owns;
rather than forever trying to harass, bully and shame independent that share all of their code but otherwise eschew "free software" and "public domain software"? |
|
|