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

[Rex Dieter <rdieter math unl edu>]

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 11:32 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> > Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> >
> > > Your opinion is irrelevant. 
> >
> > And so is yours.  Only Fedora's counts here.  That's been my point all 
> > along.  *Any* other arguement is also irrelavent.
>
>
> Of course. But you don't separate the motives. Your choice to cut out
> the remaining of the paragraph reveals it. You're reacting with emotion
> instead of rationality.

If truth be told, I just don't like long quotes, besides most of which I 
thought was irrelavent to this discussion.

> You where talking about the definition of open source, and it was in
> that regard that I made the comment.

I've been primarily commenting on Fedora's *lack* of a definition of 
opensource.  Most of the responses I've seen are simply folks offering 
their own definitions or external references.  Perhaps I err'd in 
offering my own as well.  My apologies.

-- Rex