Sure. Just because Microsoft gives a selected group of software developers the source code to Windows does that make Windows open-source? Simply being able to read the source doesn't make it open-source in the sense of the GPL. mk

From: Anders Johansson To: "Purple Shirt" , suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Yast and the next version of SuSE Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 07:46:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from [212.181.105.78] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBE559DB2003E40043123D4B5694E3A660; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:46:14 -0800 Received: from there (samantha.cicada.linux-site.net [192.168.1.2])by cicada.linux-site.net (8.11.6/8.11.3/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with SMTP id g2B6k9G24295;Mon, 11 Mar 2002 07:46:09 +0100 From andjoh@cicada.linux-site.net Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:46:44 -0800 Message-Id: <200203110646.g2B6k9G24295@cicada.linux-site.net> X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] References: In-Reply-To:

On Thursday 01 January 1970 01.00, Purple Shirt wrote:

...

Ha but that isn't the problem. The problem is yast1 is closed source and suse forces you to move on. Maybe I don't want to give up yast1 and maybe I would like to see the source and keep it functional with future suse releases if suse doesn't want to spend the time and money on keeping yast1 functional....

So look at it? What's stopping you? It's in zq1 along with every other piece of source on the CD/DVD.

...

Where is the open sourced yast1 so suse cannot enprison us to use yast2?

On the CD/DVD

...

The problem is yast1 is closed source and the corporate hand forces you to go with what suse the company decides! SuSE says yast2 is the right way and leaves you no other choice.

The golden rule. I've broken it many, many times, so trust me: it's better to follow it:

<rule> It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot, than to open it and remove all doubt </rule>

//Anders

_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com