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

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



On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Rex Dieter wrote:

> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 10:39 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > 
> >>Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> >>
> >>>However, the permission granted by UW to you does not suffice to satisfy
> >>>the (what I believe to be the) general definition of open source
> >>>software, which means the right to redistribute with any modification.
> >>
> >>That's your opinion.  My opinion is that opensource implies only that 
> >>you have access to the source and rights to with it (mostly) as you 
> >>like, which doesn't necessarily imply any sort of binary redistribution 
> >>right.
> > 
> > 
> > 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.

Since no one in an official capacity has spoken up, maybe instead of all of
the speculating, the thing to do is to submit it to fedora.us and see if Warren
etal will accept it. That would at least answer the question of whether or not
they will accept it.

I for one hope they do but I am not holding my breath. :-)

Tom



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