Similar discussion list but not only for Europe?
simo
simo.sorce at xsec.it
Mon Mar 9 16:02:33 UTC 2009
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 11:21 -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > > I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him.
> > > How is it FUD?
> >
> > The implication is that the OSI is not interested in software freedom
> > because it disagrees with the FSF on one corner-case. This is
> > historically and factually inaccurate.
> >
> > This "corner case" is clear cut, the NASA Open Source agreement
> > requires any contribution to be "original", one cannot take bits and
> > bobs from another project and incopreate it into a NASA Open Source
> > licensed project.
>
> The GNU GPL also prevents some free software to be used.
>
> Use is out of the scope of the GPL, see section 0 of the GPLv2.
Thanks for the attempt to use straw men attacks.
But you know *very* well what I meant.
The GNU GPL does not allow you to mix in code from some other *free
software* licenses as well.
If that was a criteria to judge the freedom of some software the GNU GPL
would be non-free as well. Clearly the GPL is free software, therefore
the simple fact that a license is not compatible with other free
software licenses is not a valid criterium to establish if a license is
free or not.
> No the OSI has been realistic this time. The OSI was wrong in
> accepting the original Apple License for example, but the NASA
> license is just stupid, but yet a free software license.
>
> Clearly, it isn't, since it is declared a non-free software license.
Clearly ? Please show a reasoning that does not make the GNU GPL
non-free as well.
> You are just being unreasonably zealot, but that's as usual.
>
> Please move such gibberish elsewhere.
Sure, while we have to put up with yours ? ...
Simo.
More information about the Discussion
mailing list