Re: Darwin Streaming Server
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 11:46:02AM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> I think he did mixed up the two terms :)
Nope actually I did not. I was speaking for the Software industriy
incooperating Open Technologies. I dont want to blame that. If I would have
found the extreme position of RMS valid, I would have used to work for the
FSF or the Gnu Project, but I prefered to go along with Debian, because of
the much friendier Open Source definition.
> Anyway, what is wrong with using the mentioned website [GNU def. of free] and to be clear, I'm NOT
> talking about GPL. Why not GNU definition of free and if something doesn't comply just put it in the non-free section - the reason is
> menitoned in my original post.
The question is, why we should do that? Debian was the root source for the
Open Source movement. There is a certification program associated with that
movement and a open definition. Should we give up all that, even if the
definition already existed while we created the Social Contract.. should we
give that up and use the FSF Definitions? (Perhaps I missed it, but where
are the Pros for that switch? Wehere is the need to change anything?)
Greetings
Bernd
Reply to: