chris at czv.com
Sun Sep 4 14:02:11 UTC 2005
On Sep 4, 2005, at 3:38 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> --On 04 September 2005 15:28 +0200 Chris Zumbrunn <chris at czv.com>
>> The GPL no longer being an OSI approved license would not harm
>> the GPL, the FSF or the free software movement in any way
> Too true, but perhaps not quite how you meant it.
> The GPL not being an approved license would make the OSI (and OSI
> approval) a joke, simply because most open-source software would be
> a license that did not have OSI approval. It would have the advantage
> of ending the license-proliferation discussion in a neat way though,
> because noone would bother asking the OSI for approval of their
> because noone would care. IE it would do no harm at all to open-source,
> but shoot the OSI's other foot off in spectacular manner.
I understand why you are saying that. But this is exactly what I think
be the case. Trying to force the concepts of both "open" and "free"
a single umbrella will always be trouble. Both are cool, but not the
are companions, but unfortunately only one is compatible with the other.
> The GPL not being a recommended license would conceivably be a
> position, if carefully explained. (For instance, if the GPL 2.0 was not
> a recommended license, but 3.0 was, that would clearly be an acceptable
Yes. Hopefully, if we fast-forward a few years, "open" and "free" code
bi-directionally compatible. Making the distinction now would help us
More information about the License-discuss