[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Darwin?



On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 05:32:30PM +0100, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 06:54:20AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > RMS disagrees that Apple's licence is free.  [...[
> All that aside, the OSD says it *is* an opensource license, and IIRC,
> everything which complies with the OSD (except for QPL) should also be
> DFSG-compliant, so technically it shouldn't be a problem to base a
> distribution on this (even though I am not sure I'd still want to).

QPL is definitely DFSG-free, and OSI certified: it's in main, and listed
on the OSI `approved licenses' page [0]. The APSL, otoh, isn't the
license of any software in main (afaik), and isn't on the OSI approvied
licenses page.

But remember, ESR says "open source" is now a much too commonly used word
to be trademarked, so really anyone can use it however they like...

Cheers,
aj

[0] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
        results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
                                        -- Linus Torvalds

Attachment: pgpvah7pKRlar.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: