On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:48:47 -0400, Randy Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your statement confuses me. Maybe I miss your point, "open source" *does* >mean you can read the source code. (Maybe you meant to say it "does not mean >that you can *only* read the source code"?) Well, there are two different meanings in the Open of "Open Source". 1.) Open as in free for all to use, like in the GPL. 2.) Open to read for everybody. In the second case you can read the code, and often this already helps to understand why a bug in your own code occurs or how to employ badly documented features, but you are not allowed to use it in any way. Of course copying a function call from one source to the other shouldn't hurt because there is only one way to call a specific function, but you may not copy an algorithm or part of it. ><quote> >The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, >redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the >software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And >this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of >conventional software development, seems astonishing. ></quote> But that is Open as in the first meaning which is not true for all open sources. >I can't recall the name, but there is that other thing that Microsoft promotes >that is their attempt to co-opt "open source", the program that lets some of >their customers view the source (for a fee) and (possibly) submit bug fixes, >but does not actually let them modify the code (IIUC). It was in their govermental program, but I can't recall the name now. Some words that you would never associate with MS like trust and security. :) -- Gerhard Gruber F�r jedes menschliche Problem gibt es immer eine einfache L�sung: Klar, einleuchtend und falsch. (Henry Louis Mencken) _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
