Re: Definition of Open Source [was Re: pine: UW permission to distribute]

[Stephen Smoogen <smoogen lanl gov>]

On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 12:49, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 11:34, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> > Indeed I cannot find an official definition of the term Open Source as
> > used for the Fedora Project on the Fedora Red Hat pages or on the Fedora
> > US pages. It is probably a good idea to make explicit which definition
> > is used.
> 
> We have discussed in the past using the intersection of the open source
> definition from opensource.org and the free software definition from
> gnu.org, which means "only software the two major definitions agree is
> open/free"
> 
> Anyway, we should not turn this list into a gnu.misc.discuss type of
> morass (for those of us who remember the days of gnu.misc.discuss... for
> all I know it still exists, but I haven't been on usenet in a few
> years... ;-))
> 

I think they all moved to debian-legal. 

> Havoc
-- 
Stephen John Smoogen		smoogen lanl gov
Los Alamos National Lab  CCN-5 Sched 5/40  PH: 4-0645
Ta-03 SM-1498 MailStop B255 DP 10S  Los Alamos, NM 87545
-- "We cannot have a free government without elections; and if the
-- rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone, a national election,
-- it might fairly claim to have already conquered us." Abraham Lincoln