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

Rex Dieter rdieter at math.unl.edu
Tue Jul 20 16:32:31 UTC 2004


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.

> Actually, the kind of opinions like yours are one of the reasons I prefer
> to speak about Free Software (Software Livre in Portuguese):

See above.

-- Rex





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list