bortzmeyer at pasteur.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer) wrote in <8lrpki$9rv$1
>>Yes, the John S. J. Anderson/Richard P. Grant argument is good against
>completely closed software but there is still the issue of programs
>like Phylip or Clustalw, where you have source but not freedom (one
>more reason not to use the "open source" term).
I feel I should point out that though "open source" is a vague term, "Open
Source(tm)" isn't. In fact, it has a very thorough definition:
A software distribution policy which provides the user with the source but
not with freedom, is not Open Source.