Subject: Re: Definition of open source
From: 'Rick Moen' <>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 15:08:47 -0800

Quoting Alan Rihm (

> Rick, I'm not sure why there is so much anger in the room....

Suggestion:  Cease trying to distract attention from the issue and
correct the error of referring to a clearly proprietary licence as "open
source" on your company's Web pages.  You will then notice cessation of
"anger" towards you and your firm, having removed the cause.

> ("I smell a second rat in this conversation"...that is just ignorant). 

I'm sorry, but I think my point speaks for itself.

> I believe in open source based on today's terms.

But the company of which you're founder and CEO doesn't?  I don't know
what particular sort of doubletalk that is, but it's really rather
beside the point.

> It got us here after all, but surely it is healthy to discuss
> alternative views. You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to
> be rude.

Your _views_ are not, in and of themselves, a problem (although the
cheesy special-pleading polemics were a bit insulting).  By contrast,
your firm's public statements are a problem.  So:  Your company Web
site's front page ( and a linked press
release page ( refer to
the above-mentioned proprietary licence as "open source".  That is a
deceptive misstatement of fact.  Please correct the error by removing
your firm's false claim of open source licensing.  Thank you.

Cheers,                 There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who 
Rick Moen               know ternary, those who don't, and those who are now     looking for their dictionaries.  -- Ron Fabre