On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, olive wrote: > People will be motivated to create free alternatives if anyone agree > that the fact that the license is non free. Do you really believe > that many people will be motivated to create a "free" alternative of > an OSI-certified license; which is considered free also by the FSF? Having personally participated in a few processes that have resulted in licenses which were thought to be free by the OSI but didn't pass the DFSG being changed (or in the process of being changed), I no longer need to believe. I've seen it. You may not feel it's critical, but we do, and people who we interact tend to eventually come to our point of view, or at least understand our point of view and their own much more completely in the course of a -legal review of their licences. > When people speak about free software; they refer to the FSF or to > the OSI, not Debian. When people talk about Free Software, they're talking Free Software and the groups and individuals involved in promoting and promulgating Free Software, like the FSF, Debian, and individuals who write, use and support Free Software. The OSI is not about Free Software. They're about open source software. There's a difference, and the difference is critical. Don Armstrong -- Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence Point. -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature