-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Thursday 2006-03-23 at 15:13 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
That's fantastic! There is no problem then ;-) I'm no licenses expert - but unless this approval allows SUSE users to change the code and release their changes to the public, there's still a problem with claiming that it's OSS. Martin is right. We still cannot claim that pine is OSS.
Well, as far as _I_ am concerned, I don't care if it goes to a non oss directory or whatever, as long as I can get it with the distro, either paid for or by ftp.
Obviously pine is still used by some people, so just s/drop pine/move pine to non-OSS/g in my original mail.
The "hows" is something I don't understand and don't care about much. I can not read and _understand_ licenses, anyway.
It's quite simple, actually. Pine is not OpenSource Software.
It is not by the OSS definition of OSI [1] and hence, it is not OSS.
The U&W license violates several OSS license criterias of OSI.
[1] http://opensource.org/
(and it's only "opensource" when it complies with OSI's definition of
OSS, it's not a matter of "how I call it" ;))
Read my original mail for more details:
http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse/2006-Mar/0351.html
As I wrote in an earlier mail, it's not about being picky or
"debianesque", it's just that SUSE Linux OSS is dubbed as being a 100%
OpenSource distribution. And pine+pico are _not_ OpenSource. That's all.
So either have U&W change their license (which I doubt, we won't be the
first asking them to do so) or move pine to the non-OSS ISO.
Jürgen, had any update on pine ?
(seems we all agree that pico can be replaced by nano)
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\