| |||||||||||||
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"Posted Nov 8, 2010 15:54 UTC (Mon) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702)Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
Corbet, it was not an attempt to tap into recent discussions about Open Core because the main argument was drafted before them. There's even an article published in Portuguese with it back in September.
If anything, recent discussions made it more confusing because there's ongoing distortion of the meaning of Open Core, away from the original definition we drew upon.
Here's hope it didn't drift too much away, and that people won't make incorrect assumptions about the meaning we cite and use.
(Log in to post comments)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 8, 2010 16:19 UTC (Mon) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link] I dislike the term "Open Core" because whenever I see it I always think of OpenCores. Which is, as far as I know, the older term (from 1999 according to the FAQ). It can get really confusing: when you say "open core", are you talking about a freely licensed IP core (a good thing), or what is described above (a not-so-good thing)? My first reaction is always "good thing" (since I knew of OpenCores from way before I first heard that new usage).
|
|||||||||||||