[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > If you accept the pine licence as open source then windows is nearly open > source, after all the kernel source code is available to partners and some > academic institutions etc, but those with the source code would not be > able to redistribute modified versions.
Come on, *everybody* can see the source of pine, that is the meaning of "open source". You are talking about developper's need to fork (that's what pine doesn't allow). Windows is a completeley different thing. >> distribution. The last decisions with regard to proprietary drivers and >> now the movement of pine to CD6 seem to show, that SUSE is not the most >> user-friendly distribution anymore, but the "OSI definition", "GPL >> rulez", "kernel policy forever" shouting developpers baby. > Many might not wish to sacrifice the freedoms afforded by the GPL for > greater ease of use, after all many consider windows to be easy to use but > it is not Free software. This is no discussion about Windows, but about SUSE Linux. Is its goal user-friendliness or OSI-friendliness? > As for > the kernel module issue this is slightly different as the kernel is GPLed > and binary kernel modules become part of the same program by the FSF's > definition and hence must be GPLed or violate the developer's copyright. I know all the legal discussions, however this is not LKML, but the SUSE list. I would hardly accept, that there should be user shortcomings for the sake of kernel policies, but i can very well understand the SUSE view of a maintaining nightmare for all modules, which are not supported by the kernel people anymore. Ciao Siegbert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
