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

Re: Knuth statement on renaming cm files and Licence violation.



On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 08:36:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian Sniffen)  wrote on 04.09.02 in <jvpu1l515r1.fsf@woodcarver.kendall.akamai.com>:

> > Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are
> > *good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software.
> > The question is whether they are free software.

> Statements like this really piss me off.

> Open source software *is* free software, by definition, without exception.

> In fact, given that "open source" is the same as "DFSG free",

>                      *by definition*,

> then if anything is not DFSG free then it's not open source, either.

By whose definition?

Open Source is not defined in terms of the DFSG, nor are the DFSG defined
in terms of Open Source.  The two terms have two *independent*
definitions, and determination of whether a piece of software is "DFSG
free" or "Open Source" is made by two independent groups, in accordance
with their respective guidelines.  Though I can't cite any off-hand, ISTR
that there have been real cases where an OSI-approved license was
regarded as DFSG-noncompliant.

Despite Bruce's involvement in the crafting of both terms, they are not
synonyms.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpCPdbmbs0V2.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: