Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference
Agreed. The APSL1, the RPL and several other licenses are clearly in
violation of the DFSG (and you all know where the OSD comes from). It
just seems though that the so-called 'official' definition of 'open
source' (OSI) is quite well known, but irrelevant.
Although FSF thinks AFL and OSL are free, but very inconvienient (e.g.
the OSL's assent provision).
On 1/9/06, Andrew Suffield <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 09:41:39PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > On 1/8/06, Andrew Donnellan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > Free as in DFSG-free, FSF-free, OSI-open source, etc.
> > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php
> > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php
> Which is why OSI has become more or less irrelevant these days (as
> compared to their old state of mostly irrelevant).
> .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
> : :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
> `. `' |
> `- -><- |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jabber - email@example.com
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net