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

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

Leonard den Ottolander (leonard den ottolander nl) said: 
> > I don't know that there was ever a firm decision as in a vote was taken
> > or some dictator laid down the law. I just remember someone suggesting
> > this approach and I said "that sounds good to me" when asked, and I
> > don't know if it went anywhere.
> I also falsely interpreted your reaction as being a confirmation of
> adopted policy.
> How do the Red Hat developers perceive this issue? Is the "intersection
> between OSI and FSF" approach a good enough compromise for you?

It's probably more-or-less mirrors the policy now. Certainly a pine
package that we could only apply official security patches (and where
other patches would be by negotiation) doesn't really fit the definition
of what we'd normally consider.

Moreover, we'd want whoever takes the stuff from Fedora Core to
be able to redistribute and rebuild as well (of course, you
have to watch trademark issues here.)


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