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.