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

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 17:30, Aaron Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 10:25, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:02:29 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander
> > <leonard at den.ottolander.nl> wrote:
> > > What needs to be avoided is that such software is mixed with free
> > > software in the repository.
> > 
> > I have a whole laundry list of policy questions regarding how to deal
> > with non-free software.
> > 
> > What licensing terms are allowable in Core? Which are excluded based
> > on informed legal
> > opinion considering liability compared to being excluded based on policy?
> > 
> > What licensing terms are allowable in Extras? Which are excluded based
> > on informed legal opinion considering liability compared to excluded
> > based on policy?
> > 
> > Can Fedora host or maintain a non-free repository? Is it worth it or
> > does it detract from the Core objectives?
> 
> This is a crucial question.  For example, there are about 10 external
> repositories which contain useful stuff, like Dag, Freshrpms, ATrpms,
> etc.
> 
> There's also livna.org, which contains packages built to the same QA
> standards, naming schemes, etc as Fedora Extras.  
> 
> The problem is, it's a lot easier for a new users to find the rpms from
> Dag, Freshrpms, ATrpms, etc 
> [..]
> Anyhow, it's a legal issue.
I disagree. 

IMO, a Fedora Core/Fedora Extra policy in first place is a  political/
economical or convention issue. 
As I see it, it's plain simple: "Red Hat wants it this way".

Of cause legal issues play an important role in their conclusions, but
there could be other conclusion than these.

For instance, shipping "closed source freeware", "redistributable
packages with unmodificable sources" (e.g. pine), or "free for
non-commercial use SW" would not comply to the "OSI-definitions" but
would not be illegal (in the US).

Ralf