Wouldn’t any company that offers open source software be an open source vendor? I think these guy are nitpicking…
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/02/09/further-thoughts-on-defining-open-source-vendor/
Posted via email from createTank Posterous
It basically sounds like they are trying to come up with a definition that disallows major corporations from being defined as “open source vendors”. Guess you can’t be 1337 unless you are a company that only sells services for open source and never actually make any money off the thousands of man hours invested in your product/idea… Sounds less like nit-picking and more like: “We don’t like you, so you can’t be on our list of “good” companies”
Agreed.
It would seem to me that the easiest way to define a company as an open source vendor is to determine whether the company in questions “vends” open source software. By vend, I would mean to offer for consideration, and not necessarily to sell or peddle.
It appears that companies that don’t actually “sell” FOSS, preferring instead to give it away, would be excluded from this list, as no percentage of their revenue would be derived from the open source software.
Buy:Cialis.Maxaman.Cialis Soft Tabs.Viagra Professional.Zithromax.Levitra.Viagra.Super Active ED Pack.Cialis Super Active+.Viagra Super Active+.Propecia.Cialis Professional.Soma.Viagra Soft Tabs.VPXL.Viagra Super Force.Tramadol….