On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 01:14:15PM +1300, Chris K. Young wrote:
> 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'm confused. How exactly does any of this affect the ability of people
to download the source and examine/use it to determine if it's secure
or not? After all, wasn't that the point of the discussion?
Regards.
