Subject: Re: [Frank da Cruz : Re: Kermit and
To: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Frank da Cruz <email@example.com>
Date: 11/24/1999 19:26:16
> Frank da Cruz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > How do you define "open source"?
> "Open Source" isn't a random term. It is a trademark that can be
> applied to code only that meets the Open Source Definition.
> Kermit does not meet these criteria, objectively speaking. I find this
> to be a shame, since I used to use Kermit regularly, but...
There's not much point arguing about this -- In principal I think it would
be swell if Kermit could be "Open Source Compliant" in the capitalized and
trademarked Open Source sense, but that would pretty much shut down the
Kermit Project, and I'm not devoted enough to purity to put myself and the
other staff members out of work for its sake, or abandon the many people
who depend on us. Anyway, Kermit was here for a looooong time before the
Open Source definition, or for that matter the GPL or just about any other
similar concept you can think of, so the Open Minded among us might be
willing to "grandfather" it :-) I mean really, if somebody makes up some
new thing next week will we have to comply with that too? Let's lighten
up on all this licensing purity! What's it to you if some third person
can't take my work and sell(*) it without permission (unless you're that
person)? That's the only sense in which Kermit is not "open source" or
"free" and it seems a mighty fine (and fairly pointless) distinction to me.
(*) A slight oversimplification, but not by much.