Unfortuntely a lot of organizations made some really bad decisions with how and when to use access. I know your pain, and I pitty you. But if I choose to weld a bumper hitch on to a 1984 Honda Civic, it's going to suck trying to pull a boat with it. And no matter how new and fancy that hitch is, you're still trying to pull a boat with a Civic.
If you can export the Access forms to VB6 (I think there are some 3rd party tools floating around that do this) you can use the VB6->.Net 1.0 converter to get them into.Net. At the same time, I would strip all logic from behind the forms as the fundamentals of programing in VB.Net are radically different than VB even though the syntax is similar. But that should at least get you the form designs to start with.
The specific document was NOT public. The act that it describes is legal, the steps used to take that action are for the most part public knowledge (although, only a very slim portion of the society knew them), but the document that was posted was a private document to be viewed by only specific employees of JP Morgan, and select clients.
Just because it's legal, that does not mean that it is not a leak. Hell, they could get a document showing that some Senator is gay, being gay is not a crime, but releasing a private document with that information in it would still be a leak.
Come on Batman, VB remained relatively for 10+ years. Sure a lot of functionality was added, and some fat was trimmed. But if you could write 'Hello World' in VB 3.0, you could write it in 6.0.
As for the incapatibilities between.Net 1.0 and 2.0 (something that I too find rather annoying), it was the jump from MS's first attempt at a managed code language, to a much improved 2nd verion. To list all of the applications in the world that broke compatibility between versions 1.0 and 2.0 would be impossible, but it is hardly a rare or non-industry norm. And MS was nice enough to develop conversion tools for us, the 1.0->2.0 conversion tool was pretty good. MS also learned from that experience and set up 3.0 to be able to run in the same app pools on IIS, included an extremely accurate conversion tool, and left in the legacy functionality.
Not sure what your bones with Mono are though. It's sponsored by Novel now and I believe it is covered under the 'we wont sue eachother' pact MS and Novel signed last year (it's too early in the morning for me to go digging). And on their website they state "Its [mono's] objective is to enable UNIX developers to build and deploy cross-platform.NET Applications." And "Our current focus is on inter-operating with the Microsoft SDK." Sure sounds like the goal is.Net compatibility to me. And with the recent code release from MS, things are looking pretty good for the Mono project.
Call it anecdotal evidence, but that chart doesn't represent my real world experience using IE7 and FF2. Both seem to top out at 200megs even with a bunch of tabs open and pandora streaming away. The big difference though, is that any time I minimize IE7, it's memory footprint drops to a fraction of that. Where as FF2, even when minimized, still sucks up all the memory it uses while active.
In any case, I've never had a 500 meg IE7 session.
In order to be put in jail you have to be convicted of a crime. Breaking a regulation is not a crime. The FCC can not throw anyone in jail for breaking a regulation.
Also, as we have just seen with the EPA and the supreme court, the regulatory bodies can do what ever they want, until someone sues them. Their decision to act, or to not act, is entirely their own. And those decisions are based on their interpretation of the laws, but the laws don't explicitly tell them what to do.
For instance, in the sample you have provided, Congress has specifically charged the FCC with ensuring decency in broadcasts. But they didn't specify what was obscene, or indecent, they left that to the FCC. The FCC has not only determined what is indecent and what is obscene, but has also establish safe harbor hours in which indecent programming is allowed. The FCC made that decision, they were sued, and the courts upheld their decision.
So I say again, the FCC can issue what ever regulations they want. But the strength of those regulations is bound to the lawsuit that will be sure to follow. So the FCC could issue a regulation against Comcast's P2P killing, Comcast would sue, and it would be up to the courts as to whether or not the FCC has the power to create and enforce such a regulation.
here is a legitimate concern for cops that do go undercover (they tend to do so off and on throughout a career), in that once they do, there's a big, fat online database that folks can check against before even asking "are you a cop?". To be fair, if you are the type of criminal who is engaged in activities that may be subject to undercover investigations, you are either smart enough and have the time to be able to determine a person's status as an undercover agent prior to becoming engaged with them, or you are not. The existence of this database doesn't really make it any easier as you would still have to either know the real name of the undercover officer, or you would have to have their picture, some damn good facial recognition software, and a hell of a lot of time.
The primary way of determining the validity of a cover is not be determining the real identity of the person under cover, but by determining that the cover identity does not stand up to scrutiny. With a name and some lies you can get a social, with a social you can get a credit history, with a credit history you can get all sorts of info. You could also just follow the mark around, sift their trash, or do any number of other monitoring options that would with relative quickness show you that the person is likely not who they claim to be.
And at that point, it doesn't matter who they are. All that matters is who they aren't. So this website really posses no significant risk to undercover officers. And that threat continues to shrink as the size of the database increases. Once the database is large enough, the likelihood of someone stumbling on to an officer who is currently working undercover in their region, that they would recognize becomes insignificant.
Slashdot was removed from the suit on 2005-07-20. Turns out Taco just had to take him out for an evening of dining and dancing, followed up with a night of naval gazing.
It's called nepotism. He was awarded and maintained his position based on his personal relationship with the Bush family. The Bush administration has constantly come down in favor of deregulation and business interests. So it would come to no surprise for him to continue on the path that the Bush administration is dictating.
As for the opposition's investigation, it's slightly more than a "dislike". I would classify it as more of a well documented history of trying to subvert the will of the FCC's commissioners, abusing his powers in specific regulatory areas, and all but abandoning regulation in other areas. I'm very interested in hearing more on that investigation, but as of yet, there isn't a whole lot of public knowledge on it (so far as I know).
I mean, just look at the guy's regulatory record. The only thing he hates more than Cable franchises, is consumer protection. Hell, even the Republicans are wondering what the hell this guy is doing.
Organic, before the marketing hype took over it, means 'carbon based'. That is not to say that any pesticides or insecticides were not used in the production of this OLED. But the Organic in OLED means that the base of the LED is a polymer with a carbon based composite deposited on it. The purpose 4-year project appears to have been to find a significantly more efficient (roll to roll) way of printing the organic compound to the polymer. So while the creation of the tool took four years, it could mean the ability to greatly increase production and reduce costs significantly.
What makes OLED's 'green' is that they don't require back lighting like LCD displays. Which means you can generate images for a fraction of the electrical draw.
The FCC can issue regulations with out the existence of precise laws to back them up. For instance, there is no law (at least not that I am aware of) that specifically states that the words shit, fuck, cunt, tits, motherfucker, and cocksucker are barred from use in public broadcast, yet the FCC can yank your license for saying them. Yet pussy, twat, turd tapper, asshole, etc... are acceptable.
If Comcast is a common carrier, it is by definition serving the general public under the license and limitations of the FCC. The FCC can regulate them how ever they want. Hell, they could make 'Hawaiian Shirt Friday' a mandatory event for any organization that wishes to remain licensed as a common carrier.
The FCC's power is a bit like patents. It is only as strong as the lawsuit that would ensue. While most proactive leaders would use their power to push the boundaries of regulatory power forward, the regulatory powers under Bush's watch have largely abandoned their powers. Heck, it took a lawsuit from MA just to make the EPA to regulate green house gases in exhaust from cars.
So if someone sues the FCC, or any government regulatory body, the can use existing laws to force the body to change the regulations. They can lobby congress to pass laws that change the body's ability to regulate. But the specific regulations are up to the regulatory body.
While I am hopeful that the FCC does act, I have about 0 faith in Kevin Martin.
Kevin Martin was an aide to Bush/Cheney in the 2000 election, he worked the Florida recount, he was coat tailed in as an aide in the transition from Clinton, was appointed to an advisory position once Bush took office, his wife was given a job as one of Cheney's aides, and since late 2007 he has been under investigation by Congress for abuse of power, and working to reduce the effective power of the FCC.
My local DSL provider also has the free wifi at any of their hubs deal. I don't remember which carrier it was, probably AT&T though. And that is being offered in a small town in south central Wisconsin, 20+ miles to anything that could be considered a "city". We also have 3 places in town that offer wifi while you wait. I'm not sure of their requirements though, or if there is any charge with them, as I rarely ever bust out my axiom these days.
I would agree, but having used the initial version, and the beta of version 2, it is well worth it to make the jump. Silverlight 1 to me really feels like a proto-type. Nothing about it struck me as a 'flash killer' system, heck, it barely even registered as a 'flash competitor'. But 2.0... There were huge improvements, all managed code under the pretty graphics, a good deal of the.Net 3.0 framework is exposed, the tools, VS.Net 2008 and Blend are much improved. Now it is starting to look like a really nice product. I haven't check out the initial release of 2.0 (just came out earlier this week), but one of my co-workers is already playing with it, and I've been working with the beta for a few months now.
It may be MS, but I like seeing some competition for Flash. Especially if that competition leads to improvements being made in both solutions.
His question is: "How are folks out there determining when you've backed the wrong horse, and getting back on track?"
Knowing which platform he is using is irrelevant to the topic.
Not only that, but can you imagine the flame fest, evangelism, crazy modding, and entirely worthless chaos that would ensue from him stating his platform? It would be nothing but Ruby, PHP, ASP,.Net, Java, Flash, Silverlight, AJAX, etc... fans screaming at each other over why their bandwagon is better than all the other bandwagons and flaming each other for even suggesting an alternative. Everyone would end the day with less karma and feeling crappy.
Open Source is a trademarked term Close, but not quite. "Open Source Initiative Approved" is a trademarked term. "Open source" is a descriptive wording and is not eligable for trade mark. It would be like appling for a trade mark on "really big" or "very hot".
I beg to differ. The term open source was used, although "widely" is debated as using the term in the early/mid 90's prior to wide spread adoption of the internet means that the scope of it's use is slightly harder to identify. Raymond and others used the term in the late 90's to describe Netscape's code release. Prior to and ever since the establishment of OSI, the term "open source" has continued to mean software with publicly accessible code, and a much wider subset of code-released software than the more narrow view point of the OSI definition.
Your agenda notwithstanding, the term "Open Source" has a specific technical meaning that most of us understand. The title is misleading in that regard. I'd agree with you on the title issue, but the minor limitation of the English language technicalities in this matter should have been pretty easily overcome by the tiniest amount of critical thinking and RTFS.
Knowing that "Open Source" is a proper noun and that "open source" is an adjective, I can understand having a momentary thought that Microsoft had released an application that was "Open Source Initiative Approved". But after that moment had passed, I would expect most people with the intelligence of an average/. reader to think, "woh, why the hell would they do that? They must just mean open source." And indeed, the summary and article shows that they did indeed release the project as open source, NOT Open Source/OSIA.
My bone to pick here isn't with MS's release or with open source/Open Source software, both have their own strengths and weaknesses. It's with the people who can't differentiate between a proper noun and an adjective, and the people who are trying to make every appearance of the words open source equate the requirements of the OSI's OSIA stamp.
I'm somewhat agnostic on the question of whether or not Open Source is a good thing, but it does us no good to have someone call any license their cat coughs up "Open Source". The license is completely irrelevant to it's status as open source. The license is however directly tied to it's ability to get Open Source Initiative Approval. Unfortunately, OSIA is rather long to say, so "Open Source" is becoming slang for "Open Source Initiative Approval".
This is open source, it is wholly different than OSI's Open Source. The term "Open Source" means exactly what OSI defines it as because it is a proper noun. "open source" means exactly what it sounds like, source that has been opened, because it is an adjective.
Yeah, but doing so is more easily refuted and is obviously a loaded question.
Now, if you give me a bit of time, and the kind of budgets these candidates are working with, I assure you I can find someone who has been convicted of morally horrendous crimes who is a fan of Russert. Heck, if I could track down two or three that have seen his show a few times, I could go so far as to claim "a large number of child molesters like your show!", with some proper staging and demographics work, I could probably even come up with a cool graphic pie chart that shows 68.5% of all child porn photographers polled like his show.
Wow, I figure you might just have been someone with a difference of opinion looking for a debate. But seeing as how you are replying to all of the posts clarifying the difference between OSI's definition, and the common English language definition with drivel like "STFU Microsoftie", it seems pretty clear that your opinion as a whole should be dismissed.
No, I am trying to point out that despite the better efforts of a hand full of evangelist, OSI, while a respectable organization, is not capable of redefining the English language. Any confusion here is at the feet of OSI who took a popular meaningful IT term and applied to to a lobbyist movement.
OSI's definition of "Open Source" applies to their "Open Source Initiative Approved" (tm) slogan. In this case, "Open Source" is a proper noun. It is the name of a movement. OSI is a NFP organization with a political goal, there for, it is critically important to differentiate between their message and fact.
"Open source" is an adjective. Note the distinct lack of the capital 'S'. (which I did screw up in an earlier post, my apologies for that.) The 'O' remains capitalized as it is the first word of the sentence however. When used as an adjective the words only have the meaning of their descriptive value. Which means the "source" is "open". Neither of these words have any implication on licensing or redistribution.
For another obvious example, look at the difference between the Democratic election process and the democratic election process. One is a political party and refers to a set specific set of rules and standards, the other is a political ideology with an entirely different set of rules and standards.
Just because some guy with a political agenda picks a common word loosely related to his goals as a name, doesn't mean that the word changes it's meaning to match that guy's goals.
There is a world of difference between Democratic process and democratic process.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortuntely a lot of organizations made some really bad decisions with how and when to use access. I know your pain, and I pitty you. But if I choose to weld a bumper hitch on to a 1984 Honda Civic, it's going to suck trying to pull a boat with it. And no matter how new and fancy that hitch is, you're still trying to pull a boat with a Civic.
.Net. At the same time, I would strip all logic from behind the forms as the fundamentals of programing in VB.Net are radically different than VB even though the syntax is similar. But that should at least get you the form designs to start with.
If you can export the Access forms to VB6 (I think there are some 3rd party tools floating around that do this) you can use the VB6->.Net 1.0 converter to get them into
-Rick
The specific document was NOT public. The act that it describes is legal, the steps used to take that action are for the most part public knowledge (although, only a very slim portion of the society knew them), but the document that was posted was a private document to be viewed by only specific employees of JP Morgan, and select clients.
Just because it's legal, that does not mean that it is not a leak. Hell, they could get a document showing that some Senator is gay, being gay is not a crime, but releasing a private document with that information in it would still be a leak.
-Rick
Come on Batman, VB remained relatively for 10+ years. Sure a lot of functionality was added, and some fat was trimmed. But if you could write 'Hello World' in VB 3.0, you could write it in 6.0.
.Net 1.0 and 2.0 (something that I too find rather annoying), it was the jump from MS's first attempt at a managed code language, to a much improved 2nd verion. To list all of the applications in the world that broke compatibility between versions 1.0 and 2.0 would be impossible, but it is hardly a rare or non-industry norm. And MS was nice enough to develop conversion tools for us, the 1.0->2.0 conversion tool was pretty good. MS also learned from that experience and set up 3.0 to be able to run in the same app pools on IIS, included an extremely accurate conversion tool, and left in the legacy functionality.
.NET Applications." And "Our current focus is on inter-operating with the Microsoft SDK." Sure sounds like the goal is .Net compatibility to me. And with the recent code release from MS, things are looking pretty good for the Mono project.
As for the incapatibilities between
Not sure what your bones with Mono are though. It's sponsored by Novel now and I believe it is covered under the 'we wont sue eachother' pact MS and Novel signed last year (it's too early in the morning for me to go digging). And on their website they state "Its [mono's] objective is to enable UNIX developers to build and deploy cross-platform
-Rick
Call it anecdotal evidence, but that chart doesn't represent my real world experience using IE7 and FF2. Both seem to top out at 200megs even with a bunch of tabs open and pandora streaming away. The big difference though, is that any time I minimize IE7, it's memory footprint drops to a fraction of that. Where as FF2, even when minimized, still sucks up all the memory it uses while active.
In any case, I've never had a 500 meg IE7 session.
-Rick
In order to be put in jail you have to be convicted of a crime. Breaking a regulation is not a crime. The FCC can not throw anyone in jail for breaking a regulation.
Also, as we have just seen with the EPA and the supreme court, the regulatory bodies can do what ever they want, until someone sues them. Their decision to act, or to not act, is entirely their own. And those decisions are based on their interpretation of the laws, but the laws don't explicitly tell them what to do.
For instance, in the sample you have provided, Congress has specifically charged the FCC with ensuring decency in broadcasts. But they didn't specify what was obscene, or indecent, they left that to the FCC. The FCC has not only determined what is indecent and what is obscene, but has also establish safe harbor hours in which indecent programming is allowed. The FCC made that decision, they were sued, and the courts upheld their decision.
So I say again, the FCC can issue what ever regulations they want. But the strength of those regulations is bound to the lawsuit that will be sure to follow. So the FCC could issue a regulation against Comcast's P2P killing, Comcast would sue, and it would be up to the courts as to whether or not the FCC has the power to create and enforce such a regulation.
-Rick
The primary way of determining the validity of a cover is not be determining the real identity of the person under cover, but by determining that the cover identity does not stand up to scrutiny. With a name and some lies you can get a social, with a social you can get a credit history, with a credit history you can get all sorts of info. You could also just follow the mark around, sift their trash, or do any number of other monitoring options that would with relative quickness show you that the person is likely not who they claim to be.
And at that point, it doesn't matter who they are. All that matters is who they aren't. So this website really posses no significant risk to undercover officers. And that threat continues to shrink as the size of the database increases. Once the database is large enough, the likelihood of someone stumbling on to an officer who is currently working undercover in their region, that they would recognize becomes insignificant.
-Rick
9/10 is a fraction too. So is 1/1, 3/2, and 10/3.
My use of the word fraction was intentionally vague.
-Rick
-Rick
It's called nepotism. He was awarded and maintained his position based on his personal relationship with the Bush family. The Bush administration has constantly come down in favor of deregulation and business interests. So it would come to no surprise for him to continue on the path that the Bush administration is dictating.
As for the opposition's investigation, it's slightly more than a "dislike". I would classify it as more of a well documented history of trying to subvert the will of the FCC's commissioners, abusing his powers in specific regulatory areas, and all but abandoning regulation in other areas. I'm very interested in hearing more on that investigation, but as of yet, there isn't a whole lot of public knowledge on it (so far as I know).
I mean, just look at the guy's regulatory record. The only thing he hates more than Cable franchises, is consumer protection. Hell, even the Republicans are wondering what the hell this guy is doing.
-Rick
Organic, before the marketing hype took over it, means 'carbon based'. That is not to say that any pesticides or insecticides were not used in the production of this OLED. But the Organic in OLED means that the base of the LED is a polymer with a carbon based composite deposited on it. The purpose 4-year project appears to have been to find a significantly more efficient (roll to roll) way of printing the organic compound to the polymer. So while the creation of the tool took four years, it could mean the ability to greatly increase production and reduce costs significantly.
What makes OLED's 'green' is that they don't require back lighting like LCD displays. Which means you can generate images for a fraction of the electrical draw.
-Rick
The FCC can issue regulations with out the existence of precise laws to back them up. For instance, there is no law (at least not that I am aware of) that specifically states that the words shit, fuck, cunt, tits, motherfucker, and cocksucker are barred from use in public broadcast, yet the FCC can yank your license for saying them. Yet pussy, twat, turd tapper, asshole, etc... are acceptable.
If Comcast is a common carrier, it is by definition serving the general public under the license and limitations of the FCC. The FCC can regulate them how ever they want. Hell, they could make 'Hawaiian Shirt Friday' a mandatory event for any organization that wishes to remain licensed as a common carrier.
The FCC's power is a bit like patents. It is only as strong as the lawsuit that would ensue. While most proactive leaders would use their power to push the boundaries of regulatory power forward, the regulatory powers under Bush's watch have largely abandoned their powers. Heck, it took a lawsuit from MA just to make the EPA to regulate green house gases in exhaust from cars.
So if someone sues the FCC, or any government regulatory body, the can use existing laws to force the body to change the regulations. They can lobby congress to pass laws that change the body's ability to regulate. But the specific regulations are up to the regulatory body.
-Rick
While I am hopeful that the FCC does act, I have about 0 faith in Kevin Martin.
Kevin Martin was an aide to Bush/Cheney in the 2000 election, he worked the Florida recount, he was coat tailed in as an aide in the transition from Clinton, was appointed to an advisory position once Bush took office, his wife was given a job as one of Cheney's aides, and since late 2007 he has been under investigation by Congress for abuse of power, and working to reduce the effective power of the FCC.
-Rick
My local DSL provider also has the free wifi at any of their hubs deal. I don't remember which carrier it was, probably AT&T though. And that is being offered in a small town in south central Wisconsin, 20+ miles to anything that could be considered a "city". We also have 3 places in town that offer wifi while you wait. I'm not sure of their requirements though, or if there is any charge with them, as I rarely ever bust out my axiom these days.
-Rick
My penis is large and I have fuel injection.
-Rick
I would agree, but having used the initial version, and the beta of version 2, it is well worth it to make the jump. Silverlight 1 to me really feels like a proto-type. Nothing about it struck me as a 'flash killer' system, heck, it barely even registered as a 'flash competitor'. But 2.0... There were huge improvements, all managed code under the pretty graphics, a good deal of the .Net 3.0 framework is exposed, the tools, VS.Net 2008 and Blend are much improved. Now it is starting to look like a really nice product. I haven't check out the initial release of 2.0 (just came out earlier this week), but one of my co-workers is already playing with it, and I've been working with the beta for a few months now.
It may be MS, but I like seeing some competition for Flash. Especially if that competition leads to improvements being made in both solutions.
-Rick
Pacal maybe, but Ada? That's just cruel.
-Rick
His question is: "How are folks out there determining when you've backed the wrong horse, and getting back on track?"
.Net, Java, Flash, Silverlight, AJAX, etc... fans screaming at each other over why their bandwagon is better than all the other bandwagons and flaming each other for even suggesting an alternative. Everyone would end the day with less karma and feeling crappy.
Knowing which platform he is using is irrelevant to the topic.
Not only that, but can you imagine the flame fest, evangelism, crazy modding, and entirely worthless chaos that would ensue from him stating his platform? It would be nothing but Ruby, PHP, ASP,
-Rick
-Rick
I beg to differ. The term open source was used, although "widely" is debated as using the term in the early/mid 90's prior to wide spread adoption of the internet means that the scope of it's use is slightly harder to identify. Raymond and others used the term in the late 90's to describe Netscape's code release. Prior to and ever since the establishment of OSI, the term "open source" has continued to mean software with publicly accessible code, and a much wider subset of code-released software than the more narrow view point of the OSI definition.
-Rick
Knowing that "Open Source" is a proper noun and that "open source" is an adjective, I can understand having a momentary thought that Microsoft had released an application that was "Open Source Initiative Approved". But after that moment had passed, I would expect most people with the intelligence of an average
My bone to pick here isn't with MS's release or with open source/Open Source software, both have their own strengths and weaknesses. It's with the people who can't differentiate between a proper noun and an adjective, and the people who are trying to make every appearance of the words open source equate the requirements of the OSI's OSIA stamp. I'm somewhat agnostic on the question of whether or not Open Source is a good thing, but it does us no good to have someone call any license their cat coughs up "Open Source". The license is completely irrelevant to it's status as open source. The license is however directly tied to it's ability to get Open Source Initiative Approval. Unfortunately, OSIA is rather long to say, so "Open Source" is becoming slang for "Open Source Initiative Approval".
-Rick
EXACTLY!!!
This is open source, it is wholly different than OSI's Open Source. The term "Open Source" means exactly what OSI defines it as because it is a proper noun. "open source" means exactly what it sounds like, source that has been opened, because it is an adjective.
-Rick
Yeah, but doing so is more easily refuted and is obviously a loaded question.
Now, if you give me a bit of time, and the kind of budgets these candidates are working with, I assure you I can find someone who has been convicted of morally horrendous crimes who is a fan of Russert. Heck, if I could track down two or three that have seen his show a few times, I could go so far as to claim "a large number of child molesters like your show!", with some proper staging and demographics work, I could probably even come up with a cool graphic pie chart that shows 68.5% of all child porn photographers polled like his show.
-Rick
Wow, I figure you might just have been someone with a difference of opinion looking for a debate. But seeing as how you are replying to all of the posts clarifying the difference between OSI's definition, and the common English language definition with drivel like "STFU Microsoftie", it seems pretty clear that your opinion as a whole should be dismissed.
-Rick
No, I am trying to point out that despite the better efforts of a hand full of evangelist, OSI, while a respectable organization, is not capable of redefining the English language. Any confusion here is at the feet of OSI who took a popular meaningful IT term and applied to to a lobbyist movement.
OSI's definition of "Open Source" applies to their "Open Source Initiative Approved" (tm) slogan. In this case, "Open Source" is a proper noun. It is the name of a movement. OSI is a NFP organization with a political goal, there for, it is critically important to differentiate between their message and fact.
"Open source" is an adjective. Note the distinct lack of the capital 'S'. (which I did screw up in an earlier post, my apologies for that.) The 'O' remains capitalized as it is the first word of the sentence however. When used as an adjective the words only have the meaning of their descriptive value. Which means the "source" is "open". Neither of these words have any implication on licensing or redistribution.
For another obvious example, look at the difference between the Democratic election process and the democratic election process. One is a political party and refers to a set specific set of rules and standards, the other is a political ideology with an entirely different set of rules and standards.
-Rick
To continue fighting this redundant spewage...
Open Source != Open source.
Just because some guy with a political agenda picks a common word loosely related to his goals as a name, doesn't mean that the word changes it's meaning to match that guy's goals.
There is a world of difference between Democratic process and democratic process.
Real life runs on *nix, case is sensitive.
-Rick