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

[Warren Togami]

Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Leonard den Ottolander (leonard at 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.)
> 
> Bill

I notice that Bill said "Fedora Core" in the last paragraph.  I 
personally have the opinion that if we can get away with it legally, 
pragmatism takes precedent to principles.  But then again I also believe 
much of the Debian social contract stuff is a complete waste of time, 
and not conducive to our ability to eventually triumph over the 
proprietary forces.

http://macromedia.mplug.org/
One example of where pragmatism is more important than principles is 
this closed source abomination.  We clearly would be far worse off today 
in end-user desktop viability without this software.  This is not a 
matter open to debate with me.  For the moment I believe:
The enemy of our enemy is our friend, for today at least.

This being said, unless legal tells me otherwise, I personally wish to 
accept anything in Extras that is not legally risky (as well as 
technically sound, etc.)  I care less about redistribution rights.  That 
is their problem, not ours.

I do agree that Fedora Core should always be 100% Open Source.  I also 
believe that Extras need not be this strict.  If you dislike some part 
of Extras, then just don't use it.

https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1457
On a somewhat related matter, if you feel restricted by pine's lack of 
"Freedom", then give the new cone package a try.  I am very impressed by 
what I see with cone, and it is Open Source Software, unlike pine.  It 
should be published in Extras stable real soon now.

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com