Lpc2000

So MS Windows is also open source because you can get a shared source 
license from microsoft?
I don't think so. I don't know what the best definition for "open" is, 
but yours is definitely flawed.

Richard.


derbaier wrote:

> --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, clemens fischer <ino-qc@s...> wrote:
> >
> > > derbaier:
> >
> > > "open" just means that access is available if you want it, IMHO.
> > > "closed" means no access at any price, also IMHO.
> >
> > then micro$ofts APIs would have to be considered "open", because they
> > supply specs and even source to people paying the $$.
> >
> >   clemens
>
> Well, there you go then!   :-)
> If they were not open then there would be nobody providing software
> for their OSs except M$.  And, of course with M$, they certainly are
> not free.  So you are still making my point about there being some
> difference between 'open' and 'free'.
>
> BTW, WHG and the boys certainly have made a lot of money out of the
> business they started by using someone elses software for free, and
> then selling it!
>
> -- Dave
>