Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on November 06, 2006 06:55 AM
I think the point of the article is the eventual use of “opensource” like a commercial buzzword term (similar to broadband, etc.). I think the author is arguing that the mere acts of taking a proprietary software product, changing its license, and releasing the sourcecode to the public does not “opensource” it, but rather is just the beginning. He is trying to say that opensourcing (for formerly-proprietary software) is a process, involving community participation.
Sure. What the hell's that got to do with linguistics?
And what's worse, his appeal to "linguistics" is fundamentally wrong. Any actual understanding of linguistics this guy might have had in his life must have been set aside in order to write this drivel.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Dont be daft
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 06, 2006 06:55 AMI think the point of the article is the eventual use of “opensource” like a commercial buzzword term (similar to broadband, etc.). I think the author is arguing that the mere acts of taking a proprietary software product, changing its license, and releasing the sourcecode to the public does not “opensource” it, but rather is just the beginning. He is trying to say that opensourcing (for formerly-proprietary software) is a process, involving community participation.
Sure. What the hell's that got to do with linguistics?
And what's worse, his appeal to "linguistics" is fundamentally wrong. Any actual understanding of linguistics this guy might have had in his life must have been set aside in order to write this drivel.
#