Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4288 mails)

["Timothy R. Butler" <tbutler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
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-----