Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own
personal use (not for redistribution?)
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Anal-ness
> Harald Hanche-Olsen writes:
> > + "I Haddenough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > | I mean, shit, he rattles cages with the gov't over krypto, but he
> > | won't open source his code?
> >
> > Eh? Qmail isn't open source?
>
> No. An OSI-approved Open Source license gives recipients of the code
> the freedom to redistribute modified binaries. Without that freedom,
> your software isn't OSI Certified Open Source.
>
> And RMS (Richard M. Stallman) has become much less strident over the
> years. If asked, I'm sure he would praise Dan Bernstein for giving us
> the freedom to download the source of qmail and the freedom to
> redistribute unmodified binaries. But he wouldn't call qmail free
> software for the same reason OSI would refuse to certify qmail as Open
> Source.
>
> That one essential freedom is missing. Dan has stated his reasons for
> denying us that freedom. I disagree with him, but as Linus Torvalds
> has said many a time, "He who writes the code picks the license."
>
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your
country
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people
to
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry
M.
>
