Revised License Committee Report for March 2009

wtfpl user wtfpl.user at googlemail.com
Mon Mar 16 17:40:07 UTC 2009


2009/3/16 Carlo <carlo at piana.eu>:
> When you will find a real reference to the fact that FSF *approves*
> those licenses (including those which are not Free Software, or which
> are Free Software but incompatible with GNU GPL), then you could say I
> am mistaken, which could well be the case, of course. Until now, as I
> have studied specifically the issue of Free (Open Source) Software
> taxonomy, this is the conclusion I have humbly reached, for what it is
> worth.

How about

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

"To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free
software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine
whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words. If a
license includes unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we
did not anticipate the issue in these criteria. Sometimes a license
requirement raises an issue that calls for extensive thought,
including discussions with a lawyer, before we can decide if the
requirement is acceptable. When we reach a conclusion about a new
issue, we often update these criteria to make it easier to see why
certain licenses do or don't qualify.

If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a
free software license, see our list of licenses."

Frankly, there must be something wrong with your understanding of
FSF's qualification process v. OSI's "approval" process given all the
references that I've posted. Here's a bunch more:

http://robertogaloppini.net/2006/12/11/licensing-fsf-and-osi-approval-processes/
http://www.asheesh.org/note/software/osi-vs-fsf.html
http://www.news.software.coop/osi-and-fsf-licence-approval-comparison/540/



More information about the License-review mailing list