Subject: Re: [Frank da Cruz : Re: Kermit and NetBSD]
To: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
From: David Maxwell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/24/1999 21:08:33
On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 07:06:57PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Frank da Cruz <email@example.com> writes:
> > How do you define "open source"?
> Kermit does not meet these criteria, objectively speaking. I find this
> to be a shame, since I used to use Kermit regularly, but...
So, if this is the definition to be aspired to, it seems a touch
tongue in cheek to say "Kermit won't be allowed on distibution CDs
because it's not Open Source."
9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software.
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
must be open-source software. (rationale)
Granted, maybe that's not written in the license, but holding it up
as a rule essentially makes it an unwritten part of the license.
Now, if Charles wants to say he is unwilling to put non-Open Source
software on CDs he produces, that's fine with me. But I think we
need clarification between what Charles is saying 'as Charles', and
what Charles is saying
as 'Charles Hannum <firstname.lastname@example.org>, president TNF'.
As for comparisons with other things already on CDs, or hosted
in packages/distfiles on ftp.netbsd.org, how do these fit the
definition of Open Source?
David Maxwell, email@example.comfirstname.lastname@example.org -->
(About an Amiga rendering landscapes) It's not thinking, it's being artistic!
- Jamie Woods