[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Package requests wishlist - pine

Per Bjornsson wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 11:06, Rex Dieter wrote:

OTOH, I guess it all boils down to fedora.redhat.com's definition of "open source", as referred to in point 2 on:
If pine's license doesn't meet this definition, then I would have to concede that pine has no place in in Fedora.

See, that's exactly the point. The Open Source Definition from OSI (see
specifically point 3 about derived works) - as far as I know pretty much
the authoritative source on this issue:

I don't care what opensource.org's definition is. Well, OK, I *do* care, but that's not the point I was trying to make.

The point I wanted to make is this: What is *redhat/fedora*'s definition of Open Source? I have yet to see any authoritative reference. Until I see one, I would argue that there exists enough ambiguity to include pine. For example, UW's site claims pine is opensource.

-- Rex

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]