On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:33:45 +0300
Michael Stolovitzsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Open Source = software that is accompanied by sources, whether commercial or
> not, whether are derivative works permitted or not.
NO, NO, NO. Please reread the Open-Source-Definition (in www.opensource.org)
permitting derivative work is one of the conditions required to call software
"Open Source".
E.g: Sun distributes the source to the JDK under Sun-Community-License, which
is definitely not Open-Source because it DOES NOT permit redistribution of
the (possibley modified) source.
> IANAL.
Neither do I, but we should try very hard to be precise about these terms.
Basically, there is no difference between the requirements from Open-Source
software and Free-Software (except from copyleft licenses which *requires*
to redistribute with source).
The difference is ideological and not practical. The main difference is
whether we choose to:
1. Use "Open-Source" software because it is demonstrated to
be better model for software development and maintenance
(i.e: have practical value).
2. Or we choose "Free-Software" because locking the source is
morally flawed (i.e: it is "wrong" not to give programmers
the right to modify and redistribute the source).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron
3Com only purchased rights to the numbers '3' '5' and '9', Intel
owns '4', '8', '6', and '2'. '0' and '1' are still in the public
domain ;-)
-Donald Becker
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
