[linux-elitists] (forw) Re: Sendmail v. Qmail
Fri Mar 24 12:27:51 PST 2000
Quoting Heather (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> Perhaps a note to their Feedback team to this effect would be worthwhile.
> At least as a show of "when you're stupid - there ARE consequences." (You
> can quote me.)
I've had a fairly fruitful exchange with Reichard since then. His
problem going in was that he considers qmail's licence "reasonable",
and therefore doesn't mind being sloppy about whether it's open source.
I've since then called his attention to the burgeoning problem of
proprietary software vendors sneaking their products in as "open source"
if nobody insists on maintaining the standard definition -- the only
definition we have -- of open source as == OSD-compliant. I cited
Tripwire as an example and tip of the iceberg.
I also promoted _again_ the concept of "viewable source" as a term for
source-access-provided projects that aren't OSD-compliant. I pointed
out that the term is _not_ pejorative, just descriptive, and suggested
its use in the future for such projects.
Cheers, "By reading this sentence, you agree to be bound by the
Rick Moen terms of the Internet Protocol, version 4, or, at your
rick (at) linuxmafia.com option, any later version." -- Seth David Schoen
More information about the linux-elitists