Re: [opensuse] Moving pine and pico to non-OSS

[Pascal Bleser]

(I changed the subject, as it isn't about dropping pine, but actually about moving it to CD 6)

Carlos E. R. wrote:

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.

The criteria are well-defined:
http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Yes, but it violates several OSI guidelines as for what is OpenSource and what is not. Please read my original mail about this for details.

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.

Dare I say it's a de-facto standard ?

So pico+pine should be moved to CD 6. That's all.


I should have written "dropping or moving to CD 6".

No one said pico+pine are closed source. They're just not OpenSource as of the OSI definition. Every license is a potential booby-trap on its own, and that's also why it is important to take into account OSI's definition of OpenSource. At least that makes a common denominator as of what is OpenSource and what is not. The subject and content of my mail was certainly misleading about that and I'd like to apologize for it. As pine is still used by a number of people, the question is now reduced to: "moving pico+pine to CD 6 ?".

"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.

But that comes down to those 2 points:





Anyone who cannot live with that ?
Any reasons against doing that ?

cheers
--
  -o) Pascal Bleser     http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
  /\\ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 _\_v   FOSDEM 2006 -- 25+26 February 2006 in Brussels

Robert wrote: "And the developer's view is the one that is relevant here." Note the "here". No one said that users are irrelevant. Of course no one here wants to have an extremist view on OSS and Free Software (as of FSF's definition), we're not Debian. But don't just ignore the importance of providing/having the option of a 100% OpenSource SUSE Linux. It matters too. - if we say the 5 CDs provide a 100% OSS distribution, then it should be a 100% OSS distribution - if we do not adhere to OSI's definition of "OpenSource", we should exactly define what our criteria are for considering something OpenSource or not (or rather, to be included in the 100% OSS SUSE Linux subset or not) Now, it's all about moving pico/pine (and *possibly* dropping pico as GNU nano seems to be a full-featured remplacement) to the 6th non-OSS CD + non-OSS repository, as with Java and other things.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature