"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: > > Here, I mean the free and open the same way I mentioned. > > Why the split, FSF and OSI? OSI is free, but why FSF is not open? > :( > > Open source software is not free at all in many cases. For example, > the Microsoft Shared Source License is a non-free license, but it is a > Open source license. It is a non-free license since it disallows > commercial distribution. There are more such examples, see > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html for a list of licenses > which are free and which are not.
Moronic RMS's characterizations and his "compatibility" verdicts aside for a moment, I can't find "a non-free" Microsoft Shared Source License (in fact, any of Microsoft Shared Source Licenses -- there are many) among http://opensource.org/licenses/ What are you talking about, GNUtian ams? regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
