On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 11:06, Rex Dieter wrote:
OTOH, I guess it all boils down to fedora.redhat.com's definition of "open source", as referred to in point 2 on:
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
If pine's license doesn't meet this definition, then I would have to concede that pine has no place in in Fedora.
See, that's exactly the point. The Open Source Definition from OSI (see specifically point 3 about derived works) - as far as I know pretty much the authoritative source on this issue: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
I don't care what opensource.org's definition is. Well, OK, I *do* care, but that's not the point I was trying to make.
The point I wanted to make is this: What is *redhat/fedora*'s definition of Open Source? I have yet to see any authoritative reference. Until I see one, I would argue that there exists enough ambiguity to include pine. For example, UW's site claims pine is opensource.
-- Rex
