I'm not talking about those who work with Free Software(as defined by the FSF) or Open Source(as defined by OSI). But talking about someone who never heard about it.

Yes if you limit yourself to that there's a lot. But consider this a collegaue of mine:

What do you consider open source -> I can look at the source and use it for myself - period. Nothing more or less... Similar thing when one mentions Free Software(without a definition) - I can use the software for nothing nothing more nothing less.

But yes if you know the definitions it makes a whole lot of a difference.

It is rather rare these days. I blame Steve Jobs: The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently -- Nietzsche

The system doesn't go poof after 30 days of evaluation indeed. That is Microsoft behavior... still, the only reason Red Hat is proprietary is trademarks, and that is logical, because they must be defended for brand recognition. For the rest RHEL is completely open source. Even proprietary software Red Hat bought such as Netscape LDAP and GFS is open sourced. IMO Red Hat are good open source netizens. Heck, probably even good free software netizens. But again, you cannot compare them to Nokia, because they derive profit from different means.

I'm reluctant to jump into this thread, but here goes! (Incidentally, I would prefer if it was called something like "closed-source versus open-source idealogy" or something, as upon first entering the thread I thought it would be the long-awaited list of which packages in Maemo 5 are open and which are closed). Anyway:

The thing that I find disappointing is that it seems that Nokia are scared to open the source for their packages (e.g. the media player front end) by the threat of competitors stealing them. However, what about the benefit of the community, and indeed other companies, being able to improve the packages? Brainstorming and submitting bug reports is all very well, but theoretically with the source available, people can improve the packages themselves, e.g. add portrait mode support and all the rest of it? Nokia can then ship the improved packages, ship more hardware, and make more money.

I'm not suggesting that they don't employ their own people to work on the packages, I'm just saying that by open-sourcing them, they can get the benefits of other programmers working on the packages without having to pay them.

no, it doesn't.

pine does offer source code, and does of course allow it to be reused under the same license terms, what it does NOT allow is redistributing a modified version under the same NAME.

Uhm, let me repeat the clause with added emphasis:

i know.
i say again: pine does allow modifications and derived works. it also does allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
they just have different names than "pine". alpine for example.

SubCore wrong... I'm the re-alpine coordinator(so I would consider myself knowledgable in this area). Alpine is licensed under the APACHE2 license which allows a lot. What pine is licensed is it's own PINE license which doesn't allow anything like that.

PINE != ALPINE yes... there is a historic link and quite a bit of code is the same but there are further changes that pine does not have.

SubCore, from what you say it'd seem the license tries to function as a trademark protection.

But that is not the case. They do not allow one to modify the source and then distribute that as binary. See pine/faq/legal.html. This is pretty similar to DJB software (Qmail et al).

Alpine is licensed under Apache License, version 2 which is OSI approved. No clue if they had to ask permission from authors to relicense code under Apache License v2 or could do that right away.

Alpine is from the same authors so that's not a problem UW

That still doesn't enable you to use RH Enterprise, because you won't get any updates if you have no subscription.

And just because you found an alternative, that doesn't make his example moot.