Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

Lawyers (Miscellaneous)

posted by lucho, 23.05.2008, 12:57

> > So
By "so" in this context I meant "so, what gives?" or "so, that was the case!", mening that it turns out to be different than what I previously thought (sorry, if you understand Russian or Bulgarian I can say it better but my English is not so good.)

> > what was once open source may no longer be, and what source is open and
> > what not is now decided by a committee of lawyers, specialists in the
> > so-called "intellectual property".
 >
> That is totally incorrect. They just apply _their_ mark, that the
> submitted content follows _their_ requirements.
>
> The people that take that as a cardinal truth (like you do above) promote
> that mark to an universal definition. :-P
You're totally correct in the above assertions, except that you think that I expressed my views. No, I was trying to assimilate what some other users tried to say. But I didn't find the best words to express myself in an alien language (yes, that's the word we use for foreign languages). I'm glad that we both agree that the view that a source is open not when it's open but when it complies to the Open Source Definition is wrong.

> Actually we are all Golgafrinchans, remember? :-P
Or at least so the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says ;-)

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22752 Postings in 2119 Threads, 402 registered users (0 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum