Subject: Re: "open source" -- new term for libre software
From: kragen@pobox.com (Kragen)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:44:27 -0500 (EST)

On 10 Feb 1998 bruce@va.debian.org wrote:
> [Must be free in an aggregate distribution from several sources]
> Kragen:
> > This sounds like a mistake.  Is it?
> 
> Would you read the Artistic license? Please tell me if I got it wrong.
> I already asked Adam to read it.

The Artistic license does, indeed, permit people to distribute Perl as
part of an aggregate distribution, without charge.  It also permits
them to distribute Perl by itself without charge.  So requiring that an
open-source license allow distribution of a piece of software alone
without charge would not exclude the Artistic license.

Also, excluding the Artistic license does not exclude Perl, either,
since Perl can be distributed under the GPL also.

Have I misunderstood the OS guidelines?

Kragen