On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 04:33 -0400, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:35 AM, Johannes Meixner
wrote: I think you should clarify when you post "free" what exactly that word means in your context.
What "free software" means (I didn't write only "free", I wrote explicitely "free software") in particular in the context of GNU/Linux is perfectly clear.
Perhaps it should be called 'open source'/ 'closed source' instead of 'free'/'proprietary'. Meaning that the source is available. Which usually means that it can be compiled locally and distributed, as long as the licenses are adhered to. 'free'/'proprietary' have too many other possible meanings. And the terms 'open source'/ 'closed source' are already used in this context. So why not just use them. -- Roger Oberholtzer OPQ Systems / Ramböll RST Ramböll Sverige AB Kapellgränd 7 P.O. Box 4205 SE-102 65 Stockholm, Sweden Office: Int +46 8-615 60 20 Mobile: Int +46 70-815 1696 And remember: It is RSofT and there is always something under construction. It is like talking about large city with all constructions finished. Not impossible, but very unlikely. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org