On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:33:13 +0530 (IST), Philip Tellis said:
> Sometime Today, MS cobbled together some glyphs to say:
>> concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS
> pine.
Are you sure pine is OSS?
http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html says:
,----
| Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
| agreement:
| (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
| (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
| (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or
| non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the
| packaged distribution.
`----
So, no can charge big bucks for pine.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php:
,----
| 1. Free Redistribution
| 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.
| 2. Source Code
| The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
| source code as well as compiled form.
| 3. Derived Works
| The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
| allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
| the original software.
`----
So, pine fails clause 1 of the OSS definition, and is thus not
Open source software; since it prevents selling.
manoj
--
The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an
8. R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
