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

Re: Darwin Streaming Server

On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 12:55:20PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> Yep. Additionally, I'd like to stress that the DFSG are called
> free software *guidelines*, not *definition*. IMHO, this is a
> fundamental difference of perspective: Guidelines gives you some
> guidance to decide whether we consider a license free, while a
> definition would have to be exact.
> (Btw, IMHO that's a major problem of the OSD: The DFSG (which OSI was
> starting with) was never meant to be a exact definition of free
> software--it's much too vague in many aspects--but OSI pretended to have
> an exact definition of free software, which they never had.)

I think that this could be a problem when decising where we should put different software packages as there is ambuguity in certain
cituations. I think it would be much better to use the free as defined by GNU.


And then there should be a list of all the licenses that are approved to be free. Like GLP, LGPL, Artistic, etc. etc... It's not evil to
have freeware in non-free sections - it just alerts the user to _read_ the license agreement. What is wrong with this approach?

- Adam

Reply to: