The one being wrong is still you. You're the only one who calls being able to see the source code of a program you purchase a license for "open source". I'm sure getting the source code of a program that's written in an interpreted language (PHP in this case) must be a novel and great thing to you, but rest assured it isn't for the rest of the world. "Use it however you like" and "the only thing you can't do, is give it to non-customers" contradict each other.
Also, you've failed to show any evidence of anyone but you using this useless "definition" of the term.
As for my first and second sentences, you aren't being picky -- you are being dense. A prerequisite for OSI approval of specific licenses is conforming to the OSD, but this doesn't make these two things equal. Approval is an actual process involving the examination of a license; conforming to the definition follows from licensing and its practical application. (Software patents might apply, for example.) To make it easier to understand, a license might conform to the OSD and yet not be OSI approved; and hopefully all OSI approved licenses conform to the OSD -- which makes "OSI approved" a subset of "open source".
My explanation wasn't that a product must be OSI approved to be open source. In fact, I haven't explained it yet, so here it goes: "open source" is what complies with the Open Source Definition.
By the definition you're apparently working with, any source is open, as if it can't be opened, it can't even be compiled. This makes your definition meaningless. Unless you can provide a meaningful alternative definition to the term "open source" that has actually been ever used by anyone but you, I'll be forced to believe that you're trolling me.
I would like to see use of the "open source" term before it was conceived to mean what it means now. Your explanation ("When you open the files, you see source.") is ludicrous.
it would be prudent to sink resources into a windows browser, rather than Mac or Linux.
Except coding a multiplatform application usually doesn't need much extra effort -- there are lots of libraries to help with that. Porting a windows-centric app to another platform, on the other hand, can be a lot of extra effort, from redesigning the GUI with a toolkit that works on the other platforms to replacing system-specific library calls with either #ifdef-ed versions for each platform or a library that translates the calls for each platform. There's an increasing demand for applications to work on non-windows platforms, especially in the case of a web browser that isn't IE. The majority of users who don't care what they use would stick with IE anyway. With a little foresight it's easy to realize that it isn't worth designing and implementing such an application in a windows-specific way.
Everybody knows that Linux users are crotchety and only really want to use wget and for really special pages, lynx.
Where did you get this particular piece of misinformation from?
I for one can't remember the last time I used a window manager and LIKED that new fangled environment.
And as apple knows and we all know, every user has the exact same preferences.
Too many colors and flashing lights, it's like those arcades that them darn kids like to visit.
Sounds like you're confusing those desktop environments with the bling-centric GUI of OS X.
It's nice that they're saying that... but doesn't their Impulse digital distribution platform contain DRM? Their own site doesn't seem to say either way, the Wikipedia article says it's a DRM platform and this post on their forum suggests that Impulse supports DRM but Stardock doesn't take advantage of it in their own products.
My point is, it's logically impossible that some idea has never been original (that is, every occurrence of it is "parroting"). (even if you assume that everyone in such a position must be incapable of original thought)
Being anti-gov't or anti-teacher is just a way of parroting something you heard from someone else -- it's not a legitimate position to argue from. Can you prove that? If it is just parroted by everyone who is anti-gov't or anti-teacher, where did it originate from?
Slashdot Mirror
(undoing moderation -- i've managed to click the wrong option.)
The one being wrong is still you. You're the only one who calls being able to see the source code of a program you purchase a license for "open source". I'm sure getting the source code of a program that's written in an interpreted language (PHP in this case) must be a novel and great thing to you, but rest assured it isn't for the rest of the world. "Use it however you like" and "the only thing you can't do, is give it to non-customers" contradict each other.
Also, you've failed to show any evidence of anyone but you using this useless "definition" of the term.
As for my first and second sentences, you aren't being picky -- you are being dense. A prerequisite for OSI approval of specific licenses is conforming to the OSD, but this doesn't make these two things equal. Approval is an actual process involving the examination of a license; conforming to the definition follows from licensing and its practical application. (Software patents might apply, for example.) To make it easier to understand, a license might conform to the OSD and yet not be OSI approved; and hopefully all OSI approved licenses conform to the OSD -- which makes "OSI approved" a subset of "open source".
My explanation wasn't that a product must be OSI approved to be open source. In fact, I haven't explained it yet, so here it goes: "open source" is what complies with the Open Source Definition.
By the definition you're apparently working with, any source is open, as if it can't be opened, it can't even be compiled. This makes your definition meaningless. Unless you can provide a meaningful alternative definition to the term "open source" that has actually been ever used by anyone but you, I'll be forced to believe that you're trolling me.
I would like to see use of the "open source" term before it was conceived to mean what it means now. Your explanation ("When you open the files, you see source.") is ludicrous.
How is vBulletin open source? This license doesn't look like open source at all to me.
You mean Sheer Idiot's Monopurpose Programming Language Environment?
My apologies, but I still don't find it funny. :)
Except coding a multiplatform application usually doesn't need much extra effort -- there are lots of libraries to help with that. Porting a windows-centric app to another platform, on the other hand, can be a lot of extra effort, from redesigning the GUI with a toolkit that works on the other platforms to replacing system-specific library calls with either #ifdef-ed versions for each platform or a library that translates the calls for each platform. There's an increasing demand for applications to work on non-windows platforms, especially in the case of a web browser that isn't IE. The majority of users who don't care what they use would stick with IE anyway. With a little foresight it's easy to realize that it isn't worth designing and implementing such an application in a windows-specific way.
Where did you get this particular piece of misinformation from?
And as apple knows and we all know, every user has the exact same preferences.
Sounds like you're confusing those desktop environments with the bling-centric GUI of OS X.
I've found that it is usually possible to read http://nytimes.com/ articles without the need for login via CoralCDN -- in the case of this article, the link would be http://www.nytimes.com.nyud.net/2008/09/05/science/05brain.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It's nice that they're saying that... but doesn't their Impulse digital distribution platform contain DRM? Their own site doesn't seem to say either way, the Wikipedia article says it's a DRM platform and this post on their forum suggests that Impulse supports DRM but Stardock doesn't take advantage of it in their own products.
I prefer the term "artificial person".
My point is, it's logically impossible that some idea has never been original (that is, every occurrence of it is "parroting"). (even if you assume that everyone in such a position must be incapable of original thought)
Raspberry!
There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry: Lone Starr!
Mushroom mushroom!