On 4/26/07, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the > software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing > programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a > royalty or other fee for such sale." > > So, I could write a program and sell it to you, but to conform to this > definition of open source, I would have to provide you the source code and > allow you to redistribute that source code as you see fit within the context > of your own development projects, without requiring payment for that > redistribution.
That's my understanding. My point is that most open source software is free, because unde those definitions, I could turn around and redistribute the source at will without paying royalties. Redhat Enterprise Linux is open source. They sell it, and you can't get it (from Redhat). Copyright also prevents you from referring to it as Redhat Enterprise linux, and presumably from redistributing redhat logos, etc. So the CentOS group takes the redhat enterprise linux source code, and repackages it without the word "redhat" and without the redhat logo. And they give it away for free. So yes, Redhat Enterprise Linux is both open source *AND* not free. But you're not really paying for the software, you're paying for the support. If you think you're paying for the software, you should probably just go with CentOS. If something is "Freely redistributable", it's awfully hard to sell it, just for the sake of selling the software. Rick ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/Flex/message.cfm/messageid:4004 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/Flex/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.37
