What is involved in an "Open Standard" truly being so?

djgoku djgoku at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 18:37:28 CST 2007

On Oct 31, 2007 12:41 PM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Oren Beck wrote:
> > Open Standard.
> >
> > 2 words that are being abused or distorted..
> > Either singly or as a "self qualifying " term.
> >
> > Open means what it says and says what it means.
> Actually, "Open" in "Open Source" is distorted. All it *really* implies is
> that the code is available. It does not imply that you have the legal "right"
> to redistribute it, modified or not. Hence why "Free software" not only
> predates "open source", but is more accurate given the correct definition
> of "free" (which is different from "free of charge", even if the latter is
> incorrectly abbreviated as "free" often).

GPL is Free of Charge, and open source. GPL is in no way _free_.

BSD variants/Public Domain is Free as in free to do what you want, and
open source.

More information about the Kclug mailing list