tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003063374827736283.post663693674705048457..comments2008-07-03T19:07:34.597-07:00Paul Fremantlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15326219720808613358noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003063374827736283.post-59424331474906442852008-07-03T19:07:00.000-07:002008-07-03T19:07:00.000-07:00I think the quote in the first bullet point is taken out of context. "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." applies to redistribution, not the initial distribution (sale). Still, "paid-for Open Source" is impractical.<BR/><BR/>The OS crowd avoided the word "free" in 1998, but can't escape the "gratis" practicality. And now many people is trying to get into the "Open" namespace, without giving out freedom.hdhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10560123435782819140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003063374827736283.post-83347592356524270482008-07-03T10:15:00.000-07:002008-07-03T10:15:00.000-07:00I will leave everyone else out there to decide whether you said Open or not. I admit that Ashlee saying "OK" over the top makes it harder to hear. I've made my view clear. <BR/><BR/>As for the recursive nature of you saying I shouldn't tell you what to say, well that's completely made my day. But I certainly will rephrase it. I recommend to everyone that they apply clarity to the difference between "source" and "Open Source".Paul Fremantlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15326219720808613358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003063374827736283.post-89548470334629287562008-07-03T08:24:00.000-07:002008-07-03T08:24:00.000-07:00Hmm. I just listened to it and don't hear that, but whatever. Regarding Sanjiva, Dan D corrected me. <BR/><BR/>The Mule EE product is licensed under a commercial license. <BR/><BR/>I don't mind your business model either (whatever it is) but I would ask you not to tell me what to say or do.Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15186258147571768502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003063374827736283.post-38178327326255322692008-07-03T08:08:00.000-07:002008-07-03T08:08:00.000-07:00Dave,<BR/><BR/>You said "Open Source". Its very clear. If you don't want to listen to the whole podcast, I have just your words here: <A HREF="http://fremantle.org/rosenberg_on_mule_ee.mp3" REL="nofollow">http://fremantle.org/rosenberg_on_mule_ee.mp3</A><BR/><BR/>If you want to see it in writing, just look on <A HREF="http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/2008/06/mulesource-giving-up-on-open-source.html" REL="nofollow">Sanjiva's blog</A> where you state: "The Enterprise version of Mule is open source". <BR/><BR/>I don't mind your business model, but it is clear that Mule EE is <B>not</B> Open Source, and you need to stop using those particular words.Paul Fremantlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15326219720808613358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003063374827736283.post-66961795092428668962008-07-03T07:40:00.000-07:002008-07-03T07:40:00.000-07:00Paul--I said you get the source, not that the extensions were "open source". Apologies if this confused you.Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15186258147571768502noreply@blogger.com