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

[Michael Tiemann]

On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 14:50, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Michael Tiemann (tiemann at redhat.com) said: 
> > * Source and License.  Is source code included with the package?  If
> >   not, does the package need and deserve a "binary-only exception"?  If
> >   source is available with the package, is the license governing the
> >   entire package open source (i.e., OSD-compliant)?  If so, is it also
> >   free software? [Meets OSS and/or Free Software criteria for Fedora]
> 
> Well, the overarching definition of Core and Extras as originally
> defined was that there were *no* binary exceptions.

Yup--and you're welcome.  But those are only two collections.  If the
policy is /all/ collections, that would be good to codify.

Most of the remaining comments appear to clarify rather than repudiate
what I said, so I'll incorporate the clarification.

The one question I cannot quite resolve is: if there's a binary-only
driver, say an nVidia driver, can there be a Fedora Addon collection
that includes said driver?  Or must the driver be naked--packaged for,
but never distributed as part of, Fedora XYZ?

M