Re: license questions.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:13:11PM +0200, Ali Akcaagac wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 17:55, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > That shows that you have not understood "Open Source". Open source is
> > not just about releasing source code. It's also about allowing forks.
> > If you don't allow forks, you're not open-source. That's a matter of
> > definition. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
> it's your definition isn't it ?
The Open Source Definition is a direct descendant of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines (basically identical with Debian-specific references
removed), so you can expect that the people on this list will have a
pretty good understanding of what it means. (Remember, "Open Source" is
a trademark, so it's a well-defined term.)
> b) everyone who replied me only spoke about GNU/GPL as it's a must to
> have every software participate to it.
Actually, no. You do keep talking about not wanting to use the GPL, but
the people who've responded to you haven't particularly harped on it or
taken the attitude you describe at all. The GPL is most certainly not
the only free software or open source licence available: the BSD,
Artistic (preferably the Clarified version), MPL, and many other
licences are fine.
> > Nobody says you must. You're perfectly free to release software you
> > wrote under a non-free license. Just don't claim that it's free.
> your understanding of opensource is probably not tad better than mine.
> reading these 2 sentences of yours give me the impression (i assume this
> now) that everything not signed GNU/GPL is not free which is for sure
> not correct.
This is absolutely not true, and I know Henning doesn't think that. The
BSD licence, for example, is free.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]