On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 11:09:22PM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> The point is (again, I think I'm writing this for the 4th time or so):
> when we say the 5 first CDs are "100% OSS", do we mean OSS as by OSI's
> definition, or do we have our own definition of "OSS", like: "if we have
> the source code and can redistribute it, then it's OSS" ?
We need to go by OSI. Creating another idea what OSS is will confuse
things. If SUSE decides to include other things, like pine, then please do
not call it OSS. Call it somethings like 'SUSE CD Software Criteria'
Thsi SCSC already exists in some form. No idea if there is an official
paper about it. It seems to be along the lines of: freely distributable
non-OSS sofwtare.
To see the differnt licences and how many packages use it, run
L=License:;pin $L|awk -F$L '{print $2}'|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|less
On my 10.0 I get 96 different licences.
houghi
--
Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es
ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk
und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun
- Johannes Müller-Elmau
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
