dwmal...@maths.tcd.ie (David Malone) wrote in news:h6cfp0$lm...@walton.maths.tcd.ie:
> "nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> writes: > >>First, it seems somewhere between naive and disingenuous to pretend >>that ntp, despite being (quasi-)open source (It *IS* copyrighted!), >>does not have a significant "political overhead" from a dominant >>figure that has, for instance, inhibited such aspects as updating the >>RFC. > > [This is a bit off topic, but...] > > Open source can be copyrighted or public domain. Public domain > software could also be non-open source, if (say) binaries were put > in the public domain without the source. Wikipedia has a long article > with the details... > > David. I beg to differ. There are a number of programs (truecrypt, ntp, pgp, etc.) which, despite claiming (to varying degrees) to be open-source, are neither fish nor fowl. Ntp, for instance, limits use of the name for publicity/advertising in commercially derived works. As for something being open-source "without the source," that is a laughably self-contradictory proposition. Some licence limitations may seem very trivial but, in my view, they can nonetheless be a significant disincentive to broad participation (architecture, coding, testing, etc.) or further developmet. This is particularly so when the licence is not in a "standard format" (e.g., such as the GNU licence) which means that there can be considerable FUD involved with legal interpretation of the licence (possibly requiring legal counsel to ensure one does not go offside). IP is a thorny enough thicket without "roll your own" licences such as ntp's. Ntp's licence terms do not fall far short of being truly open-source, but short is short. Regards, PS However, we are being drawn rather far afield from the original "500 ppm" question. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
