UnitedLinux and "open source"

[Rod Dixon]

Begun, this free software war has!;-)

rod


On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:

> 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
>

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3