[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: OSI equivalent

[John Sullivan]

"Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>
writes:

> --===============0423943140736445875==
> Content-Language: en-US
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature";
> 	micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540"
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D28833.18234540
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="utf-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Beyond that, is the FSF interested in compatibility between non-FSF licenses? 
> That is, if MIT and Apache 2.0 happened to be incompatible with one another, 
> would FSF care provided they were both compatible with the GPL?  In my 
> opinion, OSI is supposed to be more neutral on the matters, and therefore 
> should care more about such situations.
>

I can't immediately picture the specific situation you're talking about,
but in general we do care. For one thing because we recommend other
licenses depending on the situation (see
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html).

We also do support all free software, not just GPLed or even just
copyleft free software. Our licensing at fsf.org team answers questions
that have to do with other licenses in both their correspondence with
the community and in our compliance work.

-john

-- 
John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B
http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS

Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
<http://my.fsf.org/join>.