[even more OT] Talking Heads

[viktoras d.]

but then what is the status of java? There are tons of open source apps 
in java (http://java-source.net/), but a.f.a.i.k. java is not open 
source otherwise IBM wouldn't urge SUN to make it OSS: 
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1007_3-5165427.html. Well, it is 5 years old 
"news".

Viktoras

Peter Alcibiades wrote:
> Richmond, they were probably right.  The essence of open source is that you
> have access to the source code and the ability to modify it.  If your stuff
> had been written in (say) Python, this would be true, anyone can get Python
> on OSS terms and conditions.  Written in Rev, even if you distribute your
> source, they have no access to it without agreeing to the non-open source
> terms and conditions of the Rev license.  
>
> Probably Richard Gaskin is mistaken for a similar reason in saying that "All
> open source applications that run on Windows, Mac, or any other non-FOSS OS
> are just as "proprietary" as any Rev project released under similar
> license."
>
> No, not really.  If its OSS, you have the source, and you have free access
> (not financially, but as in speech) to any tools required.  And indeed to
> the source code of those tools.  So you can port it to any OS you like,
> including non-free ones. The fact that if so ported it then runs on a
> non-free OS however does not say anything about whether the app itself is
> free. It is free in virtue of having been written in OSS tools and in virtue
> of the fact that users have the OSS rights.
>
> I'm not doctrinaire about the use of non-OSS apps and tools (obviously,
> being a Rev licensee!).  Use them all we want.  But it is quite important to
> see things for what they are, and it is fair enough, stuff written in Rev
> cannot be OSS.  Whether this matters is a different issue.
>
>
> Richmond Mathewson wrote:
>   
>> A while ago I wrote a message to one of the high-ups at Ubuntu offering
>> to let them have FREE linux versions of a couple of programs I made about
>> 6 years ago about Phonetics using RR.
>>
>> They were refused on the grounds that, while I was entitled to distribute
>> standalones free, they were built using proprietary software.
>>
>> Personally I thought they were being a bit silly.
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>