-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Friday 2006-03-24 at 17:32 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote: > (I changed the subject, as it isn't about dropping pine, but actually about > moving it to CD 6) Right. > 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. > > Yes, but it violates several OSI guidelines as for what is OpenSource and what > is not. I said in that email that I accepted that. > Please read my original mail about this for details. I told you yesterday that I did read it days ago. > The criteria are well-defined: > http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php > > > 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. > > No one said pico+pine are closed source. Yes, IMO, somebody did, the moment he compared it with the openness of windows. > The subject and content of my mail was certainly misleading about that and I'd > like to apologize for it. > I should have written "dropping or moving to CD 6". > As pine is still used by a number of people, the question is now reduced to: > "moving pico+pine to CD 6 ?". Right, and I have no objection with that. > > > > > > "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. > > Robert wrote: "And the developer's view is the one that is relevant here." > Note the "here". No one said that users are irrelevant. I still think that users opinions are important here. Notice that the view some people express that linux is designed by developers and for developers only could become too true. > 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. > > But that comes down to those 2 points: > - 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. That's fine with me :-) Question: what about the dvd, then? - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEJIZ7tTMYHG2NR9URAmoHAJ41P7Z2nHJhhOu35KHH6WXubB3YmQCfe3+7 0W75vrxVX9FnK9i/0e++zrI= =oVjG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
