Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ [H]omer on Wednesday 05 September 2007 22:27 : \____
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
>> [restore .sig]
>>> When is "open" not "open"?
>> When it's not /Free/.
> No, but Microsoft's OOXML isn't even open. Only parts of it are open. That's
> like calling Launchpad open.
This was always the danger with the OSI thing which was started by Eric
Raymond. I don't think he really recognised the risks, or at least, he
decided that the commercial world wouldn't get involved in free software
if it were not able to lock in customers using the code. I always felt
he was incorrect here, and still do. Unfortunately, the term "open
source" has come into fashion, with the term "free software" being
left behind us. We really need a revival of the original terms, with
their original manifesto. Had ODF been FDF, then the confusion would
never have arisen, and we'd not have had Microsoft b*ggering around with
the ISO process, and generally proving that some countries are easier to
corrupt than others.
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |