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

Re: [Steve Lidie <Stephen.O.Lidie@Lehigh.EDU>] Re: xodometer licensing



[took the bug off the cc list]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 08:03:24AM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20010225T160640-0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > In that case, I guess Artistic is acceptable.  But that is
> > unfortunate, given that this means that we have diverged from the FSF
> > analysis, something that I don't think we do elsewhere.
> 
> We have always done that, since we use a different definition of "free"
> from the FSF's.  Careful reading of both has shown for a long time that
> the definitions are not equivalent although they are close.
> 

I realize that our critera are different (Debian's are much more
specific, for example).  However, other than on the Artistic license
(about which I brought up a number of questions), does the FSF
analysis differ from the Debian analysis on any other licenses?  Did
we accept the APSL (the other major point of divergence between the
OSI and the FSF)?    
           
	sam th		     
	sam@uchicago.edu
	http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
	GnuPG Key:  
	http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key

Attachment: pgpbrJIvlPsrL.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: