1. Otto

    The inability to resell or use code for commerical purposes is inherently not open source. Allowing commercial use is the “in” that has gained open source software the market it has. I agree with the OSI on this, wholeheartedly.


  2. Ryan Hellyer

    Open source to me means that the source is open for people to look at. This seems like an attempt to redefine the meaning. I’d rather stick with the self explaining definition and use another term for their chosen definition.


  3. Miroslav Glavic


    I remember SMF (the forums thing, right?, competitor to PHPBB).

    When it was proprietary…you couldn’t remove the copyright in the footer, if you tried, it would put COPYRIGHT REMOVED or some big h1 warning.

    In WordPress and PHPBB, I can remove the copyright in the footer. can SMF do that now? if no, then forced copyright is not really open source


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: