-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Again, I will say this is total bullshit. YaST is open source as in free speech..not free beer. You can see the src, do whatever the hell you
You have that mixed up, it is free beer. That is, you can have it for free, but you can't redistribute it in another commercial distribution, or even a non-profit compilation CD like the GNU software CD. Free speech software requires full freedom, free beer software only requires it doesn't cost anything - so a sales-prohibative license would be a free beer license.
want with it sans sell it..so it is open src. It's just not " Hey, take this..change it around a bunch and sell it as something that you've developed."
It is not open source, per any generally accepted meaning of that word. Why can't SuSE and SuSE loyalists admit it is shared source and be done with it? As I've noted (I will make my notes available to any who are interested), OSI - - - clearly the most definative authority on the meaning of OSS - agrees with the FSF on the definition almost down to the letter. Yes, that is right, they AGREE on the meaning, if not the wording.
There is a difference between Open Source and FSF mandated Free Software. Let's get the frell over this once and for all. sheeesh!
As I said, if you are interested, I will show you that the definition of Open Source and Free Software are nearly identitical. There is very little difference. Also, say I could redefine open source to mean only I could see the source (i.e. Shared Source code). That does not mean this new open source will be successful. Open Source has proven to be the best way for dynamic software that doesn't die like non-open source projects do. Notice that while Caldera's Lizard is now floundering under it's proprietary license, the open source older version is finding new and improved uses under the auspices of Lycoris (f/k/a Redmond Linux). The GPL, BSD, and MIT/X license *do* work, and work very well at that - much better then anti-commercial distribution licenses which insure a product dies when it's original coder looses interest (something Open Source was meant to avoid). Notably, even Caldera recognizes this. They have been releasing, for several years now, end-of-life products (DR-DOS, Ancient Unices, etc.) under open source licenses so the products can still benefit someone. Leaving old code under a restrictive license so that it can collect dust benefits no one on either side contrary to popular belief. -Tim - - -- - - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler tbutler@uninetsolutions.com Universal Networks http://www.uninet.info Christian Portal and Search Tool: http://www.faithtree.com Open Source Migration Guide: http://www.ofb.biz ============= "Christian Web Services Since 1996" ============== - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE83G07K37Cns9gJ0gRAq0KAJsFkQRza7CsrYpiBrcv7G/FnyDGggCgiGsf xTwRQ+JzCtXXw5ReR2/EEPQ= =Im2b - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE83HbqK37Cns9gJ0gRApWFAJ0UQbxHie9dypZ8Cz0d3Nj5IBw2oQCfYmUr fE7bkN8ovnTYHF6LIIDsRIQ= =Nu1l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----