UnitedLinux and "open source"

[Russell Nelson]

John Cowan writes:
 > The above program is not free software: see
 > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense .

You are presuming two things:
  1) that a lack of acceptance is the same thing as rejection, and
  2) that RMS defines "free software".  The term was in wide use
     before RMS came along.

Anybody can call anything free software.  Microsoft gives away free
software (and calls it such).  "Free software" is essentially
meaningless, which is why OSI Certification of Open Source Software
exists.

Here's what I call free software:
  If you can get the source code, AND
  If you can make any changes you want to the source, AND
  If you can create binaries, AND
  If you can redistribute your changes and binaries, THEN
  It's free software.

Please note that the GPLv2 does not provide all those freedoms.  In my
book, the GPLv2 isn't a free software license, and the GPLv3 that I've
seen is even less of a free software license.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com | 
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |  Plan to be surprised.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |  Surprise can not be planned for.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |  Be open to new light.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3