Re: license questions.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:56:57PM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote:
> On 2002-10-07 12:47:51 -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Ali Akcaagac <ali.akcaagac@stud.fh-wilhelmshaven.de> wrote:
> > > it's your definition isn't it ?
> >
> > No. Read www.opensource.org's definition at point 3:
>
> Which is the definition of a body calling itself "Open Source
> Initiative".
The one that holds the trademark on "Open Source". Surely you must agree
that that gives their definition special status?
> Interestingly the LPPL currently is not OSI certified. Does it
> follow that LaTeX is closed source?
-> debian-legal archives ad nauseam
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: