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:
pgpJgx2OIU9W5.pgp
Description: PGP signature