Hi,
On Ven 23 décembre 2005 19:13, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> Also, when was the last time that in a traditional closed software offer
> you could see the source, make changes to it, submit the changes, and
> get legal use out of your changes by using the next version of the
> binary that gets released ?
>
> You're trying to paint it a lot more black and white than it is, I
> think.
This is a lot less exceptional than you think. Microsoft shared source
program is pretty much the same thing.
Heh, you're showing your innate negativity too easily by comparing it to
this. I'm pretty sure I can't look at Microsoft code for Windows *right
now*, and even if I could, I'm pretty sure I can't expect a fix I send
to be available any time soon.
Here only upstream is allowed to release legit binaries, so you
don't get
the vendor freedom real FOSS permits.
You conveniently omitted the fact that I've mentioned before -
*everyone* downstream is free to sign this distribution contract with
us.
The point of pure FOSS distros like FC is they're not benevolent
dictatorships. You don't like them you can leave them taking with you 100%
of the code and associated rebuild rights.
As you admitted yourself a Centos-like effort would have to drop the mp3
plugin.
Again, you conveniently dropped half of what I said. I also said Centos
could easily sign this contract with us and redistribute the mp3 plugin.
I am getting the feeling you are dropping facts on purpose. I expected
better.
So it's definitely not free (I'll grant you the open part)
We never claimed it was "Free Software". Of course it's not 100% Free
Software in the sense that GNU would want it. The reason is pretty
simple - within the constraints of the patent issue it is not possible
to deliver a completely Free Software solution.
Thomas
Dave/Dina : future TV today ! -
http://www.davedina.org/
<-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*->
- Nice wheels.
- Came with the car.
<-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*->
URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! -
http://urgent.fm/