At 04:54 PM 26/03/2006, you wrote:
Pascal Bleser wrote:
> The point is (again, I think I'm writing this for the 4th time or so):
> when we say the 5 first CDs are "100% OSS", do we mean OSS as by OSI's
> definition, or do we have our own definition of "OSS", like: "if we have
> the source code and can redistribute it, then it's OSS" ?
I agree with what you write. And as it's very well said,
could you paste this on a wiki page we could reference to later?
this could also lead Novell to let go (if acvcording with
it, what I think) or changing it is necessary.
Maybe what is really needed is a three level classification rather
than the existing two
very tight levels (100% OSS or not 100%OSS).
The division could become something like,
A - 100% OSS (meets all the OSS Licensing requirements)
B - Partial OSS (meets the majority of OSS Licensing requirements)
(could also be used for programmers wanting to
release but limit users
"playing" with their source code while they develop
it to their completed
specification product)
C - NON OSS (Follows Licensing requirements that are NON-OSS compatable)
Also is the question of "do all distributions" follow the OSI OSS
Model or has someone
found that there is a "!better way"? I don't know, maybe someone who
has dealt with
that conundrum could answer.
my 2 bytes
scsijon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
