-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2006-03-24 at 13:52 +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:
Come on, *everybody* can see the source of pine, that is the meaning of
Open source is not only about _looking_ at the source. You might be satisfied by looking at a Rembrandt image or something like that but it is quite pointless to look at some source code if you are legally not allowed to do the changes you feel appropriate.
But you do are allowed to apply patches to Pine. The restriction is that they are local to you, and the modified versions be identified as modified. The patches to make those modifications can also be freely distributed. In fact, SuSE version of Pine has a number of those patches applied, like the one to use maildir type folders. I'll accept that it doesn't conform to the OSI meaning of OSS (and as such it has to go to the sixth CD), but it is not closed source either. Things are not simply black or white.
"open source". You are talking about developper's need to fork (that's
And the developer's view is the one that is relevant here. A user that is not
I can not agree, sorry. Users are relevant. If we weren't, suse would not exist. Maybe not eve Linux. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEJBiWtTMYHG2NR9URAvASAJ96NAoT+lxJN+P4xnqB2bxvFwME6wCdHLXk dHJVq4c3f0X0BvScJxCwht8= =sa/6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----