On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Michael P. Gerlek <m...@lizardtech.com> wrote: >> > A friend of mine is working in a SA country that has a new policy that >> > all software at the national level must be non-commercial open source. >> >> One of these clauses makes sense, one of them does not. Why would you >> limit yourself to *non* commercial Open Source? > > (I parsed the original as meaning "non-commercial [and] open" source, with > "non-commercial" being a technically incorrect but informally understood term > meaning "not proprietary" -- redundant, in this case, with the use of the > term "open".)
Correct. In other words, something they don't have to pay a license fee for underlying software, and that allows them to peer under the hood and modify and adapt as needed. Of course, they will pay for the cost of development, but will save on repeat installations. All the software that we concern ourselves with on this list falls in the above category. > > -mpg > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science ======================================================================= _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
