Derek Neighbors wrote:
> Um. That is correct. I think some 'open source' licenses could in fact
> restrict you from distributing thus locking you in. In fact didnt
> Caldera announce they were trying to do such a thing? However 'free
> software' would not allow this.
Yupyup, Open Source does NOT mean GPL'd. (the moon is a satelite, but
not all satelites are moons...)
The literal definition of open source is that the source code is
available for human eyes, without charge. It may even be possible to
create a licensing scheme under todays laws that allows such viewing
but prohibits compiling without first paying a fee equal to the cost
of the binary... copyright laws in our country far exceed the standard
of absurd.
--
jkenner @ mindspring . com__
I Support Linux: _> _ _ |_ _ _ _|
Working Together To <__(_||_)| )| `(_|(_)(_|
To Build A Better Future. | <s>
(text/plain)