Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could be, people use words as they wish. But if you'll take a visit to
> <URL:http://www.opensource.org/>, you'll find that the term was very
> specifically drafted by a group of people with an agenda, and they've
> produced a branding service based on an Open Source Definition, which
> definitely excludes weirdo licenses like djb's.
> Unlike Open Source, the phrase "free software" strongly predates the
> Free Software Foundation and they've made no attempt at branding it;
> rather, they pursue branding the GNU General Public License (GPL), which
> is stricter than (but compatible with) the Open Source Definition.
RMS tries to "brand" the term free software just as much as the Open
Source folks try to "brand" the term open source; neither of them have any
kind of trademark or service mark on the term (the one on Open Source
wasn't pursued) and both of them have been known to argue at great length
over the precise meaning of the terms with people who they feel are using
them incorrectly.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
