On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 01:14:15PM +1300, Chris K. Young wrote:
> Quoted from Lipscomb, Al [15 Nov 2000]:
> > Open Source is often used to describe software that has its source code
> > available regardless of the license involved.
>
> Just because it's ``often'' done doesn't mean it's correct. To me, and
> possibly others, open source is used to describe software that uses a
> licence conforming to the Open Source Definition.
>
> Have a look at clause 4, and let me know if you think that's consistent
> with the qmail and djbdns licences. Specifically: ``The [licence] must
> explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source
> code.''.
>
> > I belive that the
> > DJB software is Open Source, but not free.
>
> I used to too, and once advocated that view in my Linux users group. I
> was shot down pretty quickly.... :-)
qmail conforms loosely to the OSD, there is a footnote to section 4 that
(ambiguously) states that licenses that allow third party distribution of
patches conform. The main problem is that qmail doesn't really have a
"license" that ships with it. All people have to go on is public remarks
made by Dan, http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html, and
http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html .
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes,
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires."
38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_
8:06pm up 157 days, 18:23, 10 users, load average: 0.08, 0.06, 0.01
