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.... :-)
> Based on the FSF definition it is not the cost, but what you are allowed to
> do with it that is the issue.
Of course. Whenever I say ``free software'', that is always what I mean
(``freedom, not price''---don't you just love propaganda from the free
software movement?).
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't
Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer.
GnuPG: CCC6114E/706A6AAD |_ ---Tracy R. Reed
