-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Friday 2006-03-24 at 13:52 +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:
> > Come on, *everybody* can see the source of pine, that is the meaning of
>
> Open source is not only about _looking_ at the source. You might be satisfied
> by looking at a Rembrandt image or something like that but it is quite
> pointless to look at some source code if you are legally not allowed to do the
> changes you feel appropriate.
But you do are allowed to apply patches to Pine. The restriction is that
they are local to you, and the modified versions be identified as
modified. The patches to make those modifications can also be freely
distributed. In fact, SuSE version of Pine has a number of those patches
applied, like the one to use maildir type folders.
I'll accept that it doesn't conform to the OSI meaning of OSS (and as such
it has to go to the sixth CD), but it is not closed source either. Things
are not simply black or white.
>
> > "open source". You are talking about developper's need to fork (that's
>
> And the developer's view is the one that is relevant here. A user that is not
I can not agree, sorry. Users are relevant. If we weren't, suse would not
exist. Maybe not eve Linux.
- --
Cheers,
Carlos Robinson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFEJBiWtTMYHG2NR9URAvASAJ96NAoT+lxJN+P4xnqB2bxvFwME6wCdHLXk
dHJVq4c3f0X0BvScJxCwht8=
=sa/6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
