On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:09:54AM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote: > No - Please visit http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php > for a complete definition of what it means to be open source. > Dr B's license (If you can find it which is the first problem :-) > Seems to say that you cannot re-distribute his software (A requirement > for the term "Open Source" to apply), but that you can distribute > patches to his software. A minor but significant restriction as > you having to apply patches to access the modifications is not > required with Open Source software. So it is "open source", but not "Open Source [TM]". There will always be arguments such as this. Richard Stallman is careulf to point out that "Open Source [TM]" is not "GPL", "GNU", or "Free Software [TM]". In the end, I as a user don't care. If I can see the source code, and apply my own patches, I have what I need. So if it is "I have a server: Should I use BIND or TinyDNS?" my answer would *not* be primarily based on "Which one comes with Fedora?" (although other people may choose this criteria...). I think it means TinyDNS cannot be part of the official Fedora distribution. mark -- mark@xxxxxxxxx/markm@xxxxxx/markm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/
