Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:11:06 -0800
From: Greg White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul Jarc wrote:
> Dan's software isn't open source.
Oh, really? By whose definition? I have the source, and I have the
actual program. I suppose if you're some ESR/RMS fanatic, this does
not comply with your vision of "open source". The source is
available, and by Dan's own words you can do what you like with
it. As far as I am concerned, this meets anyone's definition of
"open source" except a fanatic.
Actually, I can't do what I like with it: I can't modify the sources
and distribute binaries compiled from the modified sources.
I don't think one has to be a fanatic to want to do that; for example,
most vendors of GNU/Linux distributions do it.
Open source software, as defined by
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
does permit distributing binaries produced from modified code.
Most of Dan's software is not open source, by a reasonable definition.
Ian
