Re: DOM DOM binding considered harmful, discriminates against open source wrote:

> Given that the bindings _are_ freely available, though not freely
> modifiable, I don't see that this "discriminates against" open source.

"When I use a term", said Humpty Dumpty grandly, "it means what I intend
it to mean, neither more nor less."

Specifically, when I say "open source" I mean "compliant with the OSI
Open Source Definition.  For legal reasons, the term cannot be trademarked,
but "open source" surely does not mean "you can read the code" no matter
what certain journalists think.

> You might want to talk to the folks at Apache and ask them how they're
> handling it. I suspect that they are either (a) telling folks to obtain
> these interfaces separately before compiling,

Apache is written in C/C++, for which there is no official DOM binding.

> "Open source" doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing affair. There are
> multiple open-source agreements running around; the OSD is only one
> instance thereof.

The OSD is not an open-source (license) agreement, but a statement
about what a license has to provide in order to be open source.


John Cowan
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! / Schliess eurer Aug vor heiliger Schau
Den er genoss vom Honig-Tau / Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.
		-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

Received on Tuesday, 9 November 1999 17:45:04 UTC