Pascal Bleser schrieb:
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/
Who says, that the power to define the term "open source" is up to OSI and not to U&W or you or me? Of course, pine is "open source", because everybody can have a look into it. That a big part of "other type of open source" developpers consider the license of pine not sufficient doesn't change this. For the actual SUSE question this does not matter, however, as it is up to SUSE/Novell to decide, which package goes to which CD. IMO, the reasoning to separate packages to different CDs originally was the problem of *legally* copying, distributing and using some packages. This was not possible for e.g. Acrobat Reader. So the separation of packages on different CDs was a service to the SUSE users. If nowadays the main concern of Novell/SUSE is to satisfy the needs of some developpers, who are too lazy to read the license themselves and therefore believe that everything on the first 5 CDs should be OSI-compliant "open source", this is just a political decision, which has to be discussed here. IIRC, some months ago, when the openSUSE project started, the goal was defined as the most user-friendly distribution. The last decisions with regard to proprietary drivers and now the movement of pine to CD6 seem to show, that SUSE is not the most user-friendly distribution anymore, but the "OSI definition", "GPL rulez", "kernel policy forever" shouting developpers baby. *rant off* So the question is, is the 6th non-OSS-CD defined from a OSI-compliant perspective, then move pine there. If it should be defined from a user's possibilities point of view, then you can keep it where it is (except the pine license also prohibits copying, distributing or using in special occasions somehow). Ciao Siegbert