"The NetBeans Open Source Lie" [1] reduced to a convenient equation.

-

SPL + BCL = Open Source.

-

*Open-Source*
[definition: OSI compliant license]
[definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php]
   * SPL: is OSI compliant
   * BCL: is *not* OSI compliant

=> "SPL + BCL = Open Source" => *False*

"The NetBeans Open Source Lie" => *Valid*

-

*Open-Source*
[definition: as the words imply, viewable/accessible source code]
[definition: the _right_ to view source code]

* SPL: grants the _right_ to view source code [and more rights]
* BCL: does *not* grant the *right* to view source code [even a limited
one].

=> "SPL + BCL = Open Source" => *False*

"The NetBeans Open Source Lie" => *Valid*

-

Some people would not resist to insist (as an escape path from the
accusation) the literal meaning of "Open Source".

But as you see, even if NetBeans / Sun Microsystems feel not _ashamed_
to do so:

"The NetBeans Open Source Lie" remains existent.

-

NetBeans and Sun Microsystems lie publically about the licensing status
of the NetBeans IDE.

Is there *anyone* in this fictive-extraordinary company who has the
courage to admit the false usage of the terms "Open Source"?

Thus Sun/NetBeans can start to take the necessary steps to overcome this?

I've already given two suggestion:

[see at the end of this message]
http://www.netbeans.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=871828&listName=nbusers

-

[1]
[NETBEANS] [EVALUATION] - E12 - The NetBeans Open Source Lie
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.softwaretools/brow...

.

.

Important to realize:

NetBeans is _not_ open-source, even if "Open Source" is taken literally.

Because BCL does not grant the right to _view_ the source-codes of e.g.
XML and J2EE editor stuff.

.