On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 16:02 -0600, Greg Woodhouse wrote:
> --- "Bhaskar, KS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One of the myths that is part of the FUD spread by vendors whose
> business models are not based on open source licenses is that
> software
> based on open source licenses is not commercial. Please do not
> inadvertently help spread this myth.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Regards
> -- Bhaskar
>
> How would you prefer that GT.M be described, if not open source? I
> can
> understand your concern here, especially since many open source
> projects are not commercially supported. I suppose a phrase like
> "Commercial software with a GPL compatible license" (or something
> like
> it) is possible, but it's awkward. Certainly, I want to refer to the
> product in the appropriate manner.
Commercial and licensed under the GPL (or the broader category of FOSS
software) are orthogonal attributes, and there are packages that fall
into all four combinations of those attributes. So, in this case, to be
completely precise, it was not Cache (commercial) vs. GT.M (open
source), but Cache (commercial, non-FOSS) vs. GT.M (commercial, FOSS).
So, removing the common attribute "commercial", it would be correct to
say Cache (non-FOSS) vs. GT.M (FOSS).
Regards
-- Bhaskar
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
