[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: 
> > > 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.
> 
> Good catch from Warren: Are you speaking of Core or Extras? Assuming the
> latter:
> 
> Yes, but can we make that policy *explicit* please. That is the whole
> point of this thread. The fact that although many people assume we are
> using *something* *like* the FSF and/or OSI definitions of open source
> some obviously don't (open software versus free source). Now if we can
> get the precise definition used in writing the former could slap the
> latter with a reference to that definition.

I've got no problems with making stuff more explicit... first comes
making updating the web site easier. :)

Bill



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