Subject: Re: [Frank da Cruz : Re: Kermit and
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Frank da Cruz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/26/1999 15:59:52
> Anyway, I would think that a license permitting distribution of Kermit
> along with "open source operating systems" would probably be good enough.
This is progress. But I'm a little unsure of how to phrase this idea. How
does one refer to the Open Source Initiative? As far as I can tell, it
doesn't have any legal or official standing, just an email address, an .org
website, and an Open Source Definition that seems to change a lot.
Assuming that some kind of blanket permission were granted for C-Kermit to
be included with "OSI Certified Open Source Definition compliant" operating
system distributions, would this cover what I expect it would cover: Linux,
FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, the Hurd, ... (what else?), but not SCO, HP-UX,
AIX, Solaris, IRIX, QNX, and so on? Does the Open Source Definition really
"capture what the great majority of the software community originally
meant", or do advocates of the various licenses (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, ...)
constantly squabble over it?
What force would the phrase "OSI Certified Open Source Definition compliant"
carry? I'm nervous about tying Kermit's fate to something so seemingly
nebulous and possibly slippery, yet I want a precise way of identifying
"free Unix" (operating system) distributions, and distinguishing them from
(a) commercial ones, and (b) "free goodies" CDROMs.