Subject: [Frank da Cruz : Re: Kermit and NetBSD]
To: Eric Fox <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Frank da Cruz <email@example.com>
Date: 11/23/1999 09:25:24
Oops, forgot to cc everybody on this reply...
firstname.lastname@example.org (Charles M. Hannum) writes:
> Eric Fox <email@example.com> writes:
> > Frank da Cruz writes:
> > The idea is not to change the C-Kermit license, but rather to license it
> > to the companies that produce these distributions, for use (but not
> > redistribution) by their customers. Thus some kind of responsible
> > corporate person would need to sign some kind of license.
> > Do you have any idea who I should talk with about this for NetBSD -- I
> > note that it has various CDROM distributors: Cheapbytes, Quality Bytes,
> > etc... Who puts the distribution CDROMs together?
> Speaking as the person who produces the `official' NetBSD CD-ROMs:
> Kermit is not open source. As long as it remains not open source, it
> will not go on our CDs.
OK. We're getting mixed results on this -- some are enthusiastic, some are
lukewarm, some are downright hostile. So Kermit will go out with some of
these distributions, which is better than before.
How do you define "open source"? Obviously, the source code is open in the
sense that it can (and should) go on the CD. The sticking point seems to be
"transitive freedom" -- that is, not only must the end user have the right to
use the software, but also to sell it. Is that what you mean by open source?
That's where we draw the line.