UnitedLinux and "open source"

[David Johnson]

On Friday 14 June 2002 01:40 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:

> You are presuming two things:
>   1) that a lack of acceptance is the same thing as rejection, and

That's how I've always understood it. RMS can't tell whether the original 
Artisitic License is free or not so he is reserving judgement. To quote: "We 
cannot say..." and "The problems are matters of wording, not substance."

>   2) that RMS defines "free software".  The term was in wide use
>      before RMS came along.

Somehow a lot of people think the imprimatur of RMS is more important than the 
definition of Free Software. This is silly and smells of cultism.

> Here's what I call free software:
>   If you can get the source code, AND
>   If you can make any changes you want to the source, AND
>   If you can create binaries, AND
>   If you can redistribute your changes and binaries, THEN
>   It's free software.

Here is the FSF's definition, which is remarkably similar to your own.

*) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. 
*) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
*) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. 
*) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the 
public, so that the whole community benefits.

I don't see where the original Artistic License (or any OSI approved license 
including the APSL) fails to meet this definition.

These freedoms are not absolute. If they were, then even the GPL would not 
qualify. There's a little but of wiggle room in the definition because the 
software has to reside in the real world in order to be useful.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
pgp public key on website
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3