On Mar 24, 06 10:18:34 -0000, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
The SUSE Linux OSS version is stated to only contain Open Source Software, if this definition is to differ from the widely accepted principles defined by the OSI or FSF then it would at least require a clear statement as to what OSS does mean in the context of SUSE.
We started with the OSI definition, because we felt, that it is a good definition. But it is still up to us, to define what we understand by Open Source. Perhaps OSI missed something, that we like to emphasize or whatever... No. I haven't heared any good arguments for amending the OSI definition. My suggestion: - Let us keep our OSS definition. Pine was its first test, others will come and we will gain more experience in judging things. - Let us move pine to CD6 for now. - I'll raise the issue with pine upstream and we will hopefully have their view of the issue here too.
So the question is, is the 6th non-OSS-CD defined from a OSI-compliant perspective, then move pine there.
Indeed, either a special definition of OSS for SUSE which is lenient enough to include pine ...
no, no, please not. Let us stay with a sharp and cripsy definition that has general acceptance. It is my understanding that CD6 is the catch-all medium for non- OSI-compliant software that *some people* would like to see with SuSE Linux.
Another possibility is that the pine/pico licence could be changed, but this seems highly improbable given that Debian had this discussion years ago.
Looking into that too. You don't want to discourage me that early, do you? :-) cheers, Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\ (/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8