On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 10:11:55PM +0100, Klaus Knopper wrote: > One big problem with free/non-free is that there is no non-costly way > to have absolute clarification about the status of software. A good reason to support the organisation trying to explain and teach the knowledge about the common definition and keep working on it, like the FSF Europe does. (Disclosure: I'm in the coreteam of the FSF Europe.) > There may be hidden proprietary issues (firmware stored as hexdump, for > example), unclear licenses, license-compatibility issues, and personal > preferences of the package maintainers who are more or less "literal" > when they interpret a license. With strict and literal interpretation, > the GPL does not even qualify as an OpenSource license as defined > on http://www.opensource.org/, but I don't want to raise more > controversial issues here, so please ignore my last statement. ;-) With the legally strict correct interpretation the GNU GPL qualifies as OpenSource license according to the Open Source Initiative itself. If you think they are acting inconsistently somehow they certainly want to know about this. (How can I ignore a FUD statement like this you already made, even when marked as please ignore?) > Thanks for your clarification about frotz, I believe that Bernhard will > remove it from the list of "non-free" programs if he can verify your > statements. I've updated the instruction in CVS.
Attachment:
pgpnkAFnGtPCx.pgp
Description: PGP signature