Subject: Re: [Frank da Cruz : Re: Kermit and
To: Frank da Cruz <email@example.com>
From: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/23/1999 15:44:23
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Frank da Cruz wrote:
> 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.
The part I don't fully understand is: we could have have (unmodified)
sources up for kermit so users could build kermit using our build system,
and we could provide binaries for everyone to download, in case compiling
is not wanted. is putting up these things for downloading by our users ok?
(right now we avoid that because of the licensing issues)
is it ok for someone to grab kermit as one of the >1000 other precompiled
packages we have right now, put it on a CD and sell it, similar to our
"official" cd? is providing (unmodified) source and maybe some patches
with that CD allowed or required?
If each of the first two questions can be answered with "yes", that would
be a first win for us (and all our users :-), and we could remove the "no
redistribution" and "don't mirror sources" restriction, yes?
For arguing further to include kermit into the base NetBSD distribution
and really stick a "modify and sell if if you want" type copyright on it,
I'll leave this to others. :-)
NetBSD - Better for your uptime than Viagra