The List has returned! [x-adr]

[lowell]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Scott Smith wrote:

> To me, open means open. If something is open in the manner in which we 
> use with "open source", then that means I can do whatever the hell I 
> want with it, no rules and no strings attached. When someone tries to 
> tell me something is "open" but then says, "Wait, actually there is a 
> catch: If you want to use my `open' software to develop something else, 
> you have to distribute WHAT YOU WROTE in terms that *I* define." it just 
> seems like a total contradiction.
> 
Is that the way it is? I thought you only had to provide source code and 
changes for things you'd used (libraries, for example) and you could then 
keep your creations hidden, if you wished, a la linksys (and qmail?)   

--"A PBS mind in an MTV world."