[antlr-interest] [v3] Lack of documentation

[Andy Tripp]

Actually, "open source" has a specific definition:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
and a non-profit company http://www.opensource.org/ who's main purpose 
seems to be to
make sure people use the term correctly.

Both the open source and free software movements go to incredible 
lengths to explain
that "free" and "open source" have nothing to do with cost. And, of 
course, software can
be open source while its documentation, support, etc are not.

So many times I've wanted to scream "OK! Stop! We get it! 'open source' 
and 'free' do
not imply gratis!"  But apparently some people really don't get it, as 
if any money changing
hands or documentation being covered by existing copyright laws somehow 
'violates
the spirit of open source'.

Oh well, the best I can do is go celebrate my right to blow my hand off 
tomorrow.
Oh wait, I don't have that right in my state...whatever.

Andy

http://slashdot.org/articles/07/06/21/1146259.shtml
Oscar Rodriguez wrote:
> I suppose someone should point out the obvious. Open source means 
> precisely that: open source code of the program being developed.
>
> I don't know where anyone gets the idea that it means you don't ever 
> have to spend money if you want to use it.
>
> It simply means that developers all over the world can work on the 
> application in question as opposed to closed source, where the 
> developer gets to decide who looks at the source and who doesn't, who 
> gets to help write more code and who doesn't.
>
> The beauty of open source is that you can get many people, from all 
> over the world, working on something cooperatively, without having to 
> have a Microsoft sized bank roll to make it happen.
>
> As far end users are concerned, open source should not be equated to 
> anything at the user level. It is strictly a means of developing 
> software.
>
>
>