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
Don't spread this opinion in the presence of RMS... he'll have you for
breakfast. His philosphies on "free software" are very different from
most of the "open source" crowd... believe me, I've been at the wrong
end of that arguement once before.