Re: Re: license questions.
> > That shows that you have not understood "Open Source". Open source is
> > not just about releasing source code. It's also about allowing forks.
> > If you don't allow forks, you're not open-source. That's a matter of
> > definition. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
>
> it's your definition isn't it ?
Now really, Ali, that's not just his definition. To allow forks IS a fundamental
part of Open Source/Free Software.
> a) somehow everyone has a slightly different understanding of
> 'opensource' and the terms of 'free software'.
We may all express them differently, but I'm pretty sure that RMS's "four
freedoms" are the foundation on which we all base our conception
of Free software.
There is, especially in places like this list, a very clear conception of what
properties software must have ot be considered free.
> b) everyone who replied me only spoke about GNU/GPL as it's a must to
> have every software participate to it.
I didn't.
> i know many replies i got are tied to the terminology and philosophy of
> the FSF. their way describing 'opensource' their way describing 'free
> software'.
That's not very strange, is it? After all, this is the debian-legal list.
> but as i initially mentioned there are other licenses that
> are OSI aproved. many of them are not related to FSF and probably
> describe their own philosophy of 'opensource' and 'free software'.
Example of a license that does not adhere to the "four freedoms" and an
explanation on how it differs, if I may be so bold?
> my
> initial point wasn't necessarily tied to GNU/GPL. no offense but i think
> that it's a bit of a short sight to only speak about GNU/GPL and about
> FSF's way of everything.
In my case, I've considered a lot of ways of looking at things and I've come
to the conclusion that the FSF philosophy is a good one, that I like. I assure
you that I've looked nigh and far, so short-sighted is not something I can agree
with you on.
> the BSD license for example is also OPENSOURCE
> aproved and REAL opensource as in terminology to have the sourcecode.
> but they are allowed to change the code and spread the binaries too. it
> would sound halfhearted and not true to say that this is not real
> opensource (this was just an example).
How does the latest version of the BSD license not adhere to the "four freedoms"?
(I'm not making rhetoric here, I really don't know.)
> > Nobody says you must. You're perfectly free to release software you
> > wrote under a non-free license. Just don't claim that it's free.
>
> your understanding of opensource is probably not tad better than mine.
I'd have to say that I think it is. Not allowing forks definately makes software
a) non-free
b) not open source (maybe "shared source" :) )
/Fredrik Persson
Reply to: