At 04:54 PM 26/03/2006, you wrote:
Pascal Bleser wrote:
The point is (again, I think I'm writing this for the 4th time or so): when we say the 5 first CDs are "100% OSS", do we mean OSS as by OSI's definition, or do we have our own definition of "OSS", like: "if we have the source code and can redistribute it, then it's OSS" ?
I agree with what you write. And as it's very well said, could you paste this on a wiki page we could reference to later?
this could also lead Novell to let go (if acvcording with it, what I think) or changing it is necessary.
Maybe what is really needed is a three level classification rather than the existing two very tight levels (100% OSS or not 100%OSS). The division could become something like, A - 100% OSS (meets all the OSS Licensing requirements) B - Partial OSS (meets the majority of OSS Licensing requirements) (could also be used for programmers wanting to release but limit users "playing" with their source code while they develop it to their completed specification product) C - NON OSS (Follows Licensing requirements that are NON-OSS compatable) Also is the question of "do all distributions" follow the OSI OSS Model or has someone found that there is a "!better way"? I don't know, maybe someone who has dealt with that conundrum could answer. my 2 bytes scsijon