On Mar 5, 2007, at 14:27, Paul Ramsey wrote:
Au contraire, you'll find the GPL and LGPL duly listed as OSI-
approved licenses here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
While the "free" folks might not like the flexibility displayed by
the "open source" movement, they can be fully subsumed from a
licensing point-of-view, if not an advocacy point-of-view.
On Mar 5, 2007, at 14:33, Ned Horning wrote:
The FSF "can't" exist under the Open Source umbrella because they
feel some Open Source does not guarantee Freedom over time. The Open
Source people can't exist under the Free umbrella because they feel
the GPL and its variants are too restrictive.
Okay, this is the part I don't get. What part of the FSF can't be
included
as open source? To me this sounds like a square saying it can't be a
rectangle since all of its side have the same length.
I think of open source as embracing a broad spectrum of licenses
including
all of those supported by the FSF. Should I not be looking at this
from a
licensing perspective?
I stand corrected by Paul from a license point of view. But I believe
that licenses such as the MIT license <http://opensource.org/licenses/
mit-license.php> which are "non-viral" in that they do not require
that derived works themselves be open source are philosophically at
odds with the Free Software Foundation's ideals.
Thus to me Free is not a subset of Open Source because the latter
does not guarantee Freedom in perpetuity. That is what makes people
think of FSF as a bunch of radical communists, but I think they are
pretty staunch defenders of a freedom that we would be loathe to lose.
Allan
--
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
