OSI enforcement?

[Matthew Flaschen]

Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Unproven facts. The FSF has never condemned the existence of proprietary
> schemes, but the fact that free software should have an equal right of
> existence.

The FSF says, "The idea that the proprietary-software social system—the
system that says you are not allowed to share or change software—is
antisocial, that it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as a
surprise to some readers." (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html).
 I don't think it gets much more explicit than that.

Please stop misstating the positions of others.

> ("Free as freedom" as they claim since always, not "free as as
> beer").

What does that have to do with an "equal right of existence" for
proprietary software.

 The FSF supports the development of commerce, and even prohibits the
> restriction of its licences against commercial use (so CC-NC licences are
> incompatible and really non free.)

Again, what does this have to do with proprietary vs. free software?

>But the FSF also recognized what others had made before (notably with the
>original BSD and MIT licences, that have since then been abused and reused in closed
>proprietary schemes because they were not enough protected, and that's the
>main reason why the GPL was created).

Proprietary derivatives of permissive licenses are not an "abuse"; they
are a natural consequence of the license.

> It's clearly the supporters of closed proprietary schemes trying to divide
> the movement, like they have already done against by severely impacting the
> "public domain" (which was popular in the 1970's and the early 1980's) so
> much that it is now very insecure and considered invalid and unusable (too
> risky to use for long term projects) by many corporate or governmental
> users, because it is now easily defeated by laws with retroactive effects
> and by patents that can steal almost everything in it.

Copyright term extensions aren't relevant to public domain dedications,
though such dedications may be invalid for other reasons.

> it's impossible to prove "prior art" with
> content published in the public domain without the signature secured by the
> copyright notice).

Proving date of publication does not require a copyright notice.

Matt Flaschen