Subject: Re: open source definition
From: Bob Young <>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:48:04 -0300

> Critique of the Open Source definition page at:

<some good suggestions deleted> 
> I have a big problem with saying "if you make a profit on a modified
> version the author can't insist on a cut."
> It may be that this is just a difference of opinion on which I will
> not come to agreement with the Open Source community.  My belief is
> that there is merit to requiring source availability without
> restricting commercialization.

Please don't confuse commercial with proprietary.  Publishing under
a freely redistributable license does not necessarily restrict the 
commercial success of your product, and can enhance that success.

On the other hand this is the problem with the name Open Source.  
If there is to be an "Open Source community" it could 
include people and companies who are willing to distribute the source 
to their software without necessarily making their software 
freely redistributable.

Seems to me that a better name for software that includes both its 
source code -and- is licensed under a freely redistributable license 
might be "free software".  ;-)

To be clear: while having access to the source is useful, it is the complete 
control the user gets when the source code is combined with a license 
that allows the user to do whatever he wants with the software that 
creates the "benefit" our customers appreciate when they chose Linux over 
the industry standard, but proprietary, OS.

Cheers,   Bob.

Red Hat Software, Inc.-----------------------------------------
Phone 919-547-0012 x227			Fax   919-547-0024
P.O. Box 13588				email:
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709