> Why can't Open Source mean just that? Then you can have two categories of > Open Source; Free with free distribution and Licensed (charged for) with > distribution rules. > > There are Closed Source applications available for free, and CS apps > available Licensed (charged for). So why should it be different for Open > Source (save for the bone-headed mistake in the definition)?
It can't/won't to most people - people who care enough about licensing to make it a focal point of their development strategy - because it's a religion to them. A way of life. It's unfortunate, I agree, but it certainly wasn't a 'mistake' from the point of view of people who care passionately about licensing issues (yes, those people exist). It's meant to be the very antithesis of 'closed source' or 'proprietary' software. As the majority of that is also 'pay for', issues about freedom to redistribute with few restrictions was *VERY* high on the list of things to codify in 'open source' ideals. Michael Kimsal http://www.logicreate.com 734-480-9961 -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.