"A buzzword that has no agreed upon meaning"
Posted Oct 19, 2010 12:18 UTC (Tue) by sladen
In reply to: Open Core and proprietary relicensing
Parent article: Kuhn: Canonical, Ltd. Finally On Record: Seeking Open Core
If a vague unknown new term "has no agreed upon meaning", why is it being used hereand for sensational ends?
When a third-party undertakes such activities, the libre/open community quietly counter by pointing out this tactic is known as "FUD".
Licensing discussions (which I believe most FSF/SFLC-involvees are intimately familiar with) are successful when they gentle affairs, undertaken calmly, with solid facts in-hand (such as copies of wording of the GPL text). If spreading FUD was apparently not acceptable when SCO did it, why is it suddenly acceptable for a figurehead of the Software Freedom Conservancy?
Input tends to be greatly valued when it arrives without sensation and based upon hard foundations.
Indeed, input also tends to be valued when it is either non-sensational or concrete in nature. By failing (IMHO) to provide either, I fear that this piece has probably missed its intended target.
to post comments)