UnitedLinux and "open source"

[Karsten M. Self]

on Fri, Jun 14, 2002, Russell Nelson (nelson at crynwr.com) wrote:
> Rodrigo Barbosa writes:
>  > Also, as you can see (if you take the time to read the infos on the site),
>  > not all Open Source licenses are free software licenses.
> 
> All software which is OSI Certified Open Source (that is, licensed
> under an approved license) is free software.

As I've discussed with Larry Rosen in the past, software in the public
domain [1] is not licensed, and is hence not subject to OSI
certification of a license, but is FSF Free Software [2].

Peace.

--------------------
Notes:

 1. This may be a rather smaller set than most people would believe.
    The conventional wisdom is that a work may be granted to the public
    domain by an explicit grant, e.g.:  "This program is granted to the
    public domain".  There is no mechanism specified in US copyright law
    for transferring works to the public domain.  Rather, certain
    classes of work are either public domain at creation (largely:
    works of the US Federal Government), or enter public domain at
    expiration of copyright.  The latter plays no role in any software
    of any current relevance.

    But for software works created by the US Federal Government, it's
    possible that a work would meet the FSF's definition of Free
    Software, but not be licensable, as OSI Open Source Certification
    required.

 2. I've been careful to use the terms OSI Open Source and FSF Free
    Software when speaking or writing on these topics.  In the same
    sense that "open source" isn't a legally significant phrase (the
    OSI's attempts to trademark this phrase failed), "free software" may
    mean different things to different people.

    I attended a presentation at LUGoD recently at which Ted Neward,
    speaking on .NET, in which he described Microsoft's "shared source"
    licensing as "open source".  I pointed observed that though open
    source itself has no legal significance, use of the phrase in this
    context, and in particular to this audience, was disingenuous and
    should be avoided.   Microsoft itself doesn't use this terminology.
    Another blatant abuse of the term occurs in the CBDTPA, in which
    technologies, which explicitly restrict classes of use (OSD clause
    6) describes availability of source code as "open source".
    
    Russ Nelson is pulling a glory (obAliceInWonderlandReference) in
    defining this term to his convenience.  Though FSF Free Software
    doesn't have the rigor of the OSI's open source definition and
    certification, there is a definition of what free software is:

	http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

    ...and RMS has given guidance on what licensing and/or distribution
    terms he feels to meet this definition.  Richard's guidance may not
    be final, but it is certainly informed.  For those who've argued
    that following Richard's guidance is "cultism", I don't see a
    significant difference, so long as Richard provides justifications
    and a coherent rationale, between what he does, and what the OSI
    does.

    As for licenses which meet OSI but not FSF terms, need I remind
    anyone of the APSL?

       http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense

    OSI Open Source and FSF Free Software are highly similar, but
    non-identical, concepts.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   Support the EFF, they support you:  http://www.eff.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20020615/46253414/attachment.sig>