Good but incorrect...

Good but incorrect...

Posted Aug 3, 2003 2:20 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
In reply to: Good but incorrect... by jdthood
Parent article: Don't be afraid: Linux is good for you (Globe and Mail)

Your definition of "open" requires the listener interpret it the same way that you do. It's rampantly exploitable. Shared Source lets (a few) people see (some bits of) code. Sound's "open" to me.

How does "open" connote "the openess of the possiblity to [...] distribute"?
Kinda stretching it there, aren't you ;p

What good is "open" software without the freedom to modify it and redistribute modified versions?

"Unfettered" is a pretty good replacement to "Free" but in the end, it's the freedom that's important.

Ciaran O'Riordan

---

(Log in to post comments)