UnitedLinux and "open source"

[Rodrigo Barbosa]

You are, of course, completly wrong.

Free Software (fsf.org) and Open Source (opensource.org) are
completly different matters.

Please, consult your data before trying to laugh at somebody's
face. Specially when you obviously have no idea what you are talking
about.

As you should know, RMS is one that don't like the name "Open Source".
Also, as you can see (if you take the time to read the infos on the site),
not all Open Source licenses are free software licenses.

Some portuguese translations:

Free Software (as in fsf.org/gnu.org) -> Software Livre
Open Source (as in opensource.org)    -> Código Aberto

Now, back to our regular schedule...

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:04:51PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
> Ah-haa... See the problem with the name "Open Source"?
> I hope people in Brazil you just use the name
> "software livre" for Open Source and avoid all the
> problems in the English language.  I hope the OSI
> adapts the name "software libre" and "software livre"
> as the official translation of the term Open Source in
> Spanish and Portuguese and avoid any literal
> translation of "Open Source" in these languages.
> 
> If the software is "livre", in spirit, it should be
> libre whether it is in binary or source.  I can share
> binaries or source with my neighbor.
> 
> > Holding the BINARIES is agains the spirit of open
> > SOURCE ?
> > 
> > Isn't that a little contradictory ? The source is
> > open, after all, isn't it ?

-- 
 Rodrigo Barbosa                   - rodrigob at tisbrasil.com.br
 TIS 				   - Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
 "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  - http://www.tisbrasil.com.br/
 Brainbench Certified -> Transcript ID #3332104

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3