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