Mark - Please don't reply to me directly. I'm subscribed to the list and I don't need a copy of your post in my inbox as well as my fedora folder. Thanks. ( I checked my list posting for a followups to <me> and I don't see on there. If you are seeing one please let me know so I can correct it. Thanks) (yes - I could use procmail to delete duplicates. I can't because I need to know when duplicates are coming in from various places. ) On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:04:12PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote: > > So it is "open source", but not "Open Source [TM]". There will always be > arguments such as this. Richard Stallman is careulf to point out that > "Open Source [TM]" is not "GPL", "GNU", or "Free Software [TM]". No. "open source" is "Open Source"(TM). Its not case sensitive. It is a specific phrase with a specific meaning. The phrase was specifically invented for this specific purpose. Sorry, You don't get to hijack it. :-) Here is a first hand account of its invention: >From the Weblog of ESR: ####################################################################### Funny, but incorrect [General] - esr - esr@xxxxxxxxxxx @ 21:38:07 >From the November 12 "Kernel Panic": Nov 12 2003 strip [ Eric has inserted a copy of this comic strip in his blog - you can see it here: http://www.ibiblio.org/esrblog/index.php?m=200311#128 ] In fact, this strip is incorrect. I did not coin the term "open source"; I only popularized it. It was coined by my friend Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute. While it's true that I more or less ran the brainstorming session and fortunately had enough of a clue to recognize a winner when it popped up, the creative leap was all hers. UPDATE: Yes, it now reads "popularized". Chris Wright changed it. Comments (4) TrackBack (0) ####################################################################### And here in the Jargon file (Incidentally also created by ESR), you can see it used in its non capitalized form: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/O/open-source.html > > In the end, I as a user don't care. If I can see the source code, and apply > my own patches, I have what I need. So if it is "I have a server: Should I > use BIND or TinyDNS?" my answer would *not* be primarily based on > "Which one comes with Fedora?" (although other people may choose this > criteria...). True - but it might also be based on: I have forty servers - How much time do I want to spend applying patches? > > I think it means TinyDNS cannot be part of the official Fedora distribution. Or an official RedHat distro, or part of any of the distro's that only use "open source" or "Free software". It fails the test for both. However in your position , I might do the same as you have done. (maybe :-) -- Jeff Kinz, Open-PC, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. "jkinz@xxxxxxxx" is copyright 2003. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at http://www.kinz.org/policy.html.
