Jason Costomiris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 01:10:10PM -0500, Brian Ashe wrote: > : Yes, but if you've read it [the postfix license], you > : would see that it is much more Debian friendly then RH, > : etc. friendly. The OSI rarely concerns itself with what > : legal liabilities a _commercial_ distribution might face > : for using a particular product in their distro. > You can purchase "official" Debian CDs too. The distributions are, IMHO, > equivalent. You can download the software, you can download ISOs, you > can pay for "unofficial" copies, or you can pay for "official" copies of > each. Also, postfix is the standard mailer for the Mandrake distro. The opinion that the OSI is unconcered with the needs of commercial users of open source software sounds very peculiar. The OSI still has the "IBM Public License Version 1.0" up on it's list of open source licences: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.html And looking at the text, it sounds a lot like an open source license to me: 2. GRANT OF RIGHTS a. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in source code and object code form. The bulk of the text seems to be an exercise in paranoia about protecting the guys writing code from any legal attacks. The only place where commercial distros are mentioned, they're essentially just saying that the code authors aren't responsible for any advertising claims the distro makes. (And I see that gnu.org concurs that it's a free software license, albeit with some incompatibilities with the GPL). _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
