Definition of Open Source [was Re: pine: UW permission to distribute]
Rex Dieter
rdieter at math.unl.edu
Tue Jul 20 16:52:02 UTC 2004
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 11:32 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>>Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>>
>>>Your opinion is irrelevant.
>>
>>And so is yours. Only Fedora's counts here. That's been my point all
>>along. *Any* other arguement is also irrelavent.
>
>
> Of course. But you don't separate the motives. Your choice to cut out
> the remaining of the paragraph reveals it. You're reacting with emotion
> instead of rationality.
If truth be told, I just don't like long quotes, besides most of which I
thought was irrelavent to this discussion.
> You where talking about the definition of open source, and it was in
> that regard that I made the comment.
I've been primarily commenting on Fedora's *lack* of a definition of
opensource. Most of the responses I've seen are simply folks offering
their own definitions or external references. Perhaps I err'd in
offering my own as well. My apologies.
-- Rex
More information about the devel
mailing list