Re: license questions.
Ali Akcaagac <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 17:55, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > well i don't have any problems releasing the sourcecode.
> > 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 ?
No. Read www.opensource.org's definition at point 3:
"3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
> a) somehow everyone has a slightly different understanding of
> 'opensource' and the terms of 'free software'.
> b) everyone who replied me only spoke about GNU/GPL as it's a must to
> have every software participate to it.
Probably because you talked about the GPL, and we wanted to correct some
misunderstanings on your part.
> i know many replies i got are tied to the terminology and philosophy of
> the FSF. their way describing 'opensource' their way describing 'free
I'm sure you won't find the FSF talk of Open-Source at all.
> but as i initially mentioned there are other licenses that
> are OSI aproved. many of them are not related to FSF and probably
> describe their own philosophy of 'opensource' and 'free software'. my
> initial point wasn't necessarily tied to GNU/GPL. no offense but i think
> that it's a bit of a short sight to only speak about GNU/GPL and about
> FSF's way of everything. the BSD license for example is also OPENSOURCE
> aproved and REAL opensource as in terminology to have the sourcecode.
> but they are allowed to change the code and spread the binaries too.
You dislike the BSD license even more than the GPL since it allows for
forks to be closed source.
> would sound halfhearted and not true to say that this is not real
> opensource (this was just an example).
Show me where Henning Makholm (or anyone else who posted) said that the
BSD license is not Open Source.
In any case, Debian has its own guidelines as to what we consider free
software. The Debian Free Software Guildelines
> > 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.
I'm sorry but I would think Henning Makholm's understanding of
opensource is more than a tad better than yours.
> 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.
Nowhere did he say that.
I'm sorry that you feel you must contest everything we say. If you
don't want "our" opinion, then don't solicit it on our mailing list.
You say you are looking for an "Open Source" license that makes forks
impossible. We're telling you that's not possible because that right
of the premises of Open Source. If you ever find such a license, please
let us know!