Subject: Re: open source definition
Date: 10 Feb 1998 21:47:58 -0000

From: Russell Nelson <>
> It's necessary in order to call qmail "Open Source".

Qmail still does not pass because the license doesn't give you permission to
distribute modified binaries. Also Daniel has this thing about not wanting
to state certain things in his license because he feels they are a given
under the law. That is fine for those of you who want to be test cases,
it makes the rest of us uncomfortable.

> But it loses the zero-cost meaning.  Slaves were freed, but you never
> get freed samples in the mail.

This is more a matter of usage than meaning, is it not? A bit too
subtle if you ask me. If you wanted me to trademark "libre software"
it would make more sense.