> It is not about "freely licensed" but about being > freely redistributable.
The key word is freely. If I own something, and I allow you to freely use it for any purpose (development only, redistribution, personal use, whatever) then how can you complain? I am not forcing you to use it, and I am not asking you to give me anything in return. > People are interested in OSS mostly because they like > to have things freely > redistributable. Please stop saying things like this. You don't speak for all people. I don't even believe you speak for a majority of people, but that's just my opinion. If YOU are interested in OSS mostly because YOU like to have things freely redistributable, then say that. Saying the license is unacceptable because it does not provide redistributable source code implies that Oracle has some sort of obligation to do so. They do not. They have obligations to their customers and to their shareholders. They seem to be doing well at meeting those obligations: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100917-707612.html eric -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
