From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_MISSING, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from greylight.firinn.org (12-239-52-172.client.attbi.com [12.239.52.172]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 74686ABBC0 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 07:20:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 9108 invoked by uid 1000); 24 Sep 2002 12:24:52 -0000 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 07:24:52 -0500 From: Mark Bainter To: "Thomas M. Beaudry" Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] License criteria for Gentoo Message-ID: <20020924122451.GH10976@firinn.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Thomas M. Beaudry" , gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <130601c2629f$83c78b90$55f1d782@vapier> <20020923040056.GE10976@firinn.org> <3D903C32.2090606@myrealbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D903C32.2090606@myrealbox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.19-crypto-r7 on a i586 X-PGP-Fingerprint: CF87 F5AA 26AB 9FA2 BBF3 90D0 0DD1 D14C B2DF AD43 Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 2a8b059e-24d0-4366-a599-60332e5226f4 X-Archives-Hash: 7641ac0cca79145fd2884cd201953c05 Thomas M. Beaudry [k8la@myrealbox.com] wrote: > I wasn't going to jump into this mess but... I know the feeling. Unfortunately, left unchecked these things rarely go well. > I don't like adding reference to the FSF for the same reason RMS didn't > like the first BSD license, there's the potential for the need to add > more and more such references. You could conceivably end up with a page > full of such references. Well, we aren't talking about acknowledging every /license/ here, only the two major organizations promotiong free/open software. I don't know that we'll really have that many. > Furthermore, I do not see where RMS sees the potential for non-free > software under one of the OSI approved licenses. I just checked the > web page of approval criteria to verify I remembered correctly and > the first criteria is that the license allows free unrestricted > distribution of the software. How much more free can you get than > that? For this you have to understand that we aren't talking about free in a generic sense of the word. We're talking about "Free" as defined by RMS. Which basically means protected by the GPL, or a license 100% compatible with it. In other words, while BSD licensed software might be considered free by most of us, it's really just "open source", and doesn't meet RMS's criteria for "Free Software". It's all a matter of defining terms. --