In Rick's initial mail he claimed I was attempting to con the original
poster. I had no such intent, I have an opinion like everyone else, and while
I may be misguided I am not malicious.
On Fri 10 May 2002 03:08, Rick Moen made the point that:
> Quoting Ciaran (cj at nologic.org):
>> [About qmail:]
>> > It is proprietary AND open-source.
What I *meant* is that it is proprietary for the reasons you cited, but open
source in that the source is, well, for want of a better word, open. If a
piece of software provides the source code freely, allows modifications for
personal use and patches for distribution but does not have an OSI sticker,
does this mean that I cannot use the words "open" and "source" in that order
in the same sentence as that product without fear of reprisals? Or is "Open
Source" proprietary?
/Ciaran
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
