We need to come up with a term for Open Source stuff that isn't quite open, just so we can avoid the confusion and dillution of the original term.

A few suggestions:

• Slightly Ajar Source
  
• Semi-Closed Source
  
• Partially Unshut Source
  
• Marginally Unobstructed Source
  
• Mostly Dehiscent Source
  

Okay, yes, I was just pulling words out of the thesaurus at the end there....

How about "Stripper Source"

You can look, but you can't touch!

I think it's like a "swirly" where someone sticks your head in a toilet while it's being flushed, except a "whurley" is where you do it to yourself.

If you can see the code, its open source.

It's not FOSS. It's not OSI. Its not free as in beer or freedom. But it is open source.

What has any bastard done to deserve being used as a derogative term.

how, for example, is this statement any different from "souless greedy ni**ers"?

While I might, as a bastard, have managed to move on, being a bastard brings more than enough burdens on the child by itself, such that it is hardly soul-ful for society to pile on, by using the term as a generic substitute for a derogative adjective.

And no, the meaning /doesn't/ change over time, merely because its secondary uses are more prevalent.

Just consider perhaps in future choosing words which are not intended constitutionally to harm or devalue innocent children.

AIK

You're a really uptight bastard, aren't you?

No offense intended, but I'm not sure how a post like this got modded so far up. Are we passing out tinfoil hats at the door now? (I know, I know. I must be new here.)

Let's take as a given that Microsoft would like all developers to be using their technologies. In their perfect happy world, every developer is using Visual Studio as their IDE, their language of choice is a .NET language, everyone's writing apps to run on Windows, etc. Microsoft all over the place.

In pursuit of that goal, is it more logical that they would make this move to:

A) Allow .NET devs to see/debug through the .NET libraries, making developing using their stuff more attractive to some subset of the developer community, or

B) Begin an intricate long-ranging litigation scheme against something like Mono, that even fewer developers than the subset in (A) know much about, that in no way is currently posing any kind of threat to their dominance (such as it is), on the off chance it might bear some kind of fruit years down the line?

Shit, Bond villains don't even bust out plans like the scenario you've concocted.

Sure, MS is greedy. Sure, they don't hold sacred the principles of freedom that you do. Sure, they may be evil -- but they're a generally *sensible* kind of evil, the kind that isn't building an elaborate cannon that shoots heads of lettuce while guns are available.

Son: *slams the door and locks the dad behind it*
Dad: Open the door!
Son: The word "open" has many different connotations. Open to view? Open to change? Open to redistribute? ...
Dad: Just open the god damn door and let me in!

Sure, MS is greedy. Sure, they don't hold sacred the principles of freedom that you do. Sure, they may be evil -- but they're a generally *sensible* kind of evil, the kind that isn't building an elaborate cannon that shoots heads of lettuce while guns are available.

You, my friend, have obviously never taken a close look at ActiveX. Not only does the gun shoot lettuce, it's e. coli-laden lettuce, and it fires it straight out the back of the barrel down the shooter's throat. 8^)