| 1 |
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 14:24, Mark Bainter wrote: |
| 2 |
> Thomas M. Beaudry [k8la@×××××××××.com] wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I wasn't going to jump into this mess but... |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I know the feeling. Unfortunately, left unchecked these things |
| 6 |
> rarely go well. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > I don't like adding reference to the FSF for the same reason RMS didn't |
| 9 |
> > like the first BSD license, there's the potential for the need to add |
| 10 |
> > more and more such references. You could conceivably end up with a page |
| 11 |
> > full of such references. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Well, we aren't talking about acknowledging every /license/ here, only |
| 14 |
> the two major organizations promotiong free/open software. I don't know |
| 15 |
> that we'll really have that many. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> > Furthermore, I do not see where RMS sees the potential for non-free |
| 18 |
> > software under one of the OSI approved licenses. I just checked the |
| 19 |
> > web page of approval criteria to verify I remembered correctly and |
| 20 |
> > the first criteria is that the license allows free unrestricted |
| 21 |
> > distribution of the software. How much more free can you get than |
| 22 |
> > that? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> For this you have to understand that we aren't talking about free |
| 25 |
> in a generic sense of the word. We're talking about "Free" as |
| 26 |
> defined by RMS. Which basically means protected by the GPL, or a |
| 27 |
> license 100% compatible with it. In other words, while BSD licensed |
| 28 |
> software might be considered free by most of us, it's really just |
| 29 |
> "open source", and doesn't meet RMS's criteria for "Free Software". |
| 30 |
> It's all a matter of defining terms. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Small correction: |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The BSD licence IS FREE, unless you were referring to the original licence |
| 35 |
with the advertising clause in it. |
| 36 |
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Christophe Vanfleteren |
Archives