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.
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. - Herman