On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
The questioner was asking whether it was Open Source. It is not yet
"official" Open Source, but it seems to follow the letter of the OSD
even if it strays from the general spirit several times.
I'm not certain I agree with that, myself. Its
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote:
Ironically, that restriction excludes nearly all the commercial GNU/Linux
distributions. They typically include some non-free software--an
unfortunate policy--and hardly any of them fits the criterion specified
in the Motif
Ironically, that restriction excludes nearly all the commercial GNU/Linux
distributions. They typically include some non-free software--an
unfortunate policy--and hardly any of them fits the criterion specified
in the Motif license.
The OpenMotif
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, you wrote:
For terms not defined in the license (such as "operating system"), it would
be easy for whoever brought the lawsuit to argue that using the term
according to precedent -- i.e., as in the Microsoft vs. US case, which would
be everything on the CD from the
4 matches
Mail list logo
