On Mar 24, 06 10:18:34 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The SUSE Linux OSS version is stated to only contain Open Source Software,
> if this definition is to differ from the widely accepted principles
> defined by the OSI or FSF then it would at least require a clear statement
> as to what OSS does mean in the context of SUSE.
We started with the OSI definition, because we felt, that it is a good
definition. But it is still up to us, to define what we understand by Open
Source. Perhaps OSI missed something, that we like to emphasize or
whatever... No. I haven't heared any good arguments for amending the OSI
definition.
My suggestion:
- Let us keep our OSS definition. Pine was its first test, others will
come and we will gain more experience in judging things.
- Let us move pine to CD6 for now.
- I'll raise the issue with pine upstream and we will hopefully have their
view of the issue here too.
> > So the question is, is the 6th non-OSS-CD defined from a OSI-compliant
> > perspective, then move pine there.
>
> Indeed, either a special definition of OSS for SUSE which is lenient
> enough to include pine ...
no, no, please not.
Let us stay with a sharp and cripsy definition that has general acceptance.
It is my understanding that CD6 is the catch-all medium for non-
OSI-compliant software that *some people* would like to see with SuSE
Linux.
> Another possibility is that the pine/pico licence could be changed, but
> this seems highly improbable given that Debian had this discussion years
> ago.
Looking into that too.
You don't want to discourage me that early, do you? :-)
cheers,
Jw.
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_
<V> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/
\ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\
(/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
