Re: [Fsfe-uk] Clarification needed

[Alex Hudson]

On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 20:10, John Dean wrote:
> This is not quite true. The source code comes along with the binaries or as 
> a separate download. The point is the source code is available thus making 
> our software as in speech.

Well, for example, according to your webpages (www.thekompany.com),

"You may not distribute any changes you make without those changes being
accepted back by theKompany.com and incorporated into the Software
Product"

The violates section 4 of the Open Source definition. Are we talking
about the same licence? How does this one support the Open Source model?
I'm even more sure that this doesn't qualify as Free Software, since the
four freedoms listed as the common definition of Free Software include
the freedom to redistribute source.

> At 18:37 25/03/2002 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> ><file://e:\program files\qualcomm\eudora mail\attach\Re [Fsfe-uk] 
> >Clarification nee.ems <0880.0002>>30487bb.jpg<file://e:\program 
> >files\qualcomm\eudora mail\attach\Re [Fsfe-uk] Clarification nee.ems 
> ><0880.0002>> Re [Fsfe-uk] Clarification nee.ems

No, I definitely did _not_ say that :P

Cheers,

Alex.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part