Just a side note here: I have a special affinity for the term “faux-pen source”, because it first came around in the sense that I use it (“pretending to be open source”), but there was a brief attempt by some of the usual chuckleheads to push “fauxpen source” as a term for those who are not in the “real” FLOSS community (i.e. those who don’t kneel at the altar of Microsoft and worship Mono/Moonlight/Novell, and may even –GASP!– raise inconvenient questions).

It didn’t catch on of course, but I am constantly amused by how hypocritical and un-self aware a segment of that fan club is! I always get a chuckle when Person A accuses Person B of being guilty of the exact thing Person A is engaged in.

Nonetheless, if they have any success whatsoever in promoting a government (esp. common law) acceptance of the term “open source” as incorporating rights to modification and distribution (per the OSD), it should be a step in the right direction. Even though I prefer the term “Free Software”, I still don’t wish to see “Open Source” further usurped by those who’d have it equated with “Shared Source” (or with Jason’s neologism, “Faux-pen Source”).

Open Source – well I’m not sure what it is, or what good it does, if any.