On Friday 30 November 2001 4:23 am, J C Lawrence wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:10:42 -0800 (PST) > > Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Given the history of Free Software and Open Source (that Open > > Source is a marketing name (Bruce Perens) or marketing program > > (Eric Raymond) for Free Software), can there be any question that > > a software license the Free Software Foundation published is not > > Open Source?
If the FSF published licenses that didn't meet the OSD, then they wouldn't be open source licenses. And in fact the FSF do just that; on their webh site many of their documents are marked: Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. Which prohibits changing and is thus not an open source license. > Yes, tho for political reasons you're unlikely to ever see that > response by OSI. It is relatively easy to argue, for instance, that > the viral properties of the GPL are excessively restrictive and > violate the spirit if not intent of the OSS definition Only in the sense that it's easy to argue that 2 plus 2 is 5. When the OSD was written (in its original incarnation the, DFSG) the GPL was in mind specifically as one of the licenses that should meet this definition. -- *** Philip Hunt *** [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3