DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Fri Jan 11 02:36:11 UTC 2008
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Well, this means that "open source" is a weakened definition of "free
> software", but I'm not sure that this really applies in practice, because
> most open source softwares are also free software (the reverse is not
> necessarily true).
What free software licenses fail to comply with the OSD?
> But are there cases where some "free" content that is considered by some as
> not being "open source". A known example is the GNU FDL licence (used by
> Wikimedia wiki projects) that is not directly compatible with GPL and open
> source, but still qualified as being "free".
This is not a software license, and is currently beyond the scope of
OSI. Moreover, there is no such thing as "compatible with [...] open
> Let's stay away from the philosophic background of the FSF, this is their
> opinion (possibly shared volantrily by others)
If we're going to discuss the differences between OSI and the FSF, it is
foolish to ignore their respective philosophies.
> (excluding also the "Preamble" which is not binding, even though it is
> widely advertised, it is not a required part of the FSF licences, including
> in "verbatim" copies of the licence, a Preamble that you can freely drop if
> it does not reflect your opinion).
The preamble is not legally binding (it may be advisory), but you *can
not* drop it. If you drop the preamble, you are infringing copyright on
both the license and any software you're distributing with it.
though it is also clear from the license text itself.
More information about the License-discuss