On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 04:35:25PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 10:48:42AM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 09:21:51AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > > > Nevertheless, not all of the licenses we might discuss in the context of > > > this thread are considered Free by the FSF, so there is a need for other > > > terminology. > > > > Example? > > There are plenty of licenses that allow viewing and reuse of the source, > which some people might think of as being "open source", but contain > other stipulations that FSF deem incompatible with their concept of Free > Software. > > Here's FSF's list: > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses I know about this list. It kind of makes sense: each of those licenses have restrictions on how one's supposed to distribute the software (or a changed version thereof). > I don't think there is (or could be) any that are OSDL-approved that > could be considered by FSF as non-Free. But OSI's definition of what > "open source" means isn't the same as everyone else's understanding of > that word. > > > Moreover, since this is a Debian list: is there anything DFSG > > which isn't free according to the FSF definition? > > I don't think that could happen, That was my take, too. > but going the other way, there's > GFDL-licensed documentation with invariant sections that say they must > not be altered, which then makes them not-DFSG-free, so Debian strips > them out of packages. I knew that. That's unfortunate, but difficult to avoid. Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature