On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:13:55AM +0200, Farid Hajji wrote: > > > > BSD-style licensed software is still free software (untill it's hoarded > > and becomes propietary, of course), which is the point of it. The fact > > that the parents of the free software movement have the GPL as their > > license of choice doesn't mean that only GPLed software is free. > > Sorry, I don't agree here. BSD-style licenses grant users _and_ > developers alike freedom to use the source as they see fit. This > qualifies BSD-licensed software as "free software", but not as "Free > Software". The latter term has the precise meaning of: "[L]GPLed > software".
I don't see why capitalisation should make a difference, but if you're referring to the FSF definition of free software it doesn't say anything about being GPLed, other than GPL is a free software license. > I'm sure that a lot of people in the FSF/GNU culture would vehemently > protest if Diomidis (who, being a hacker, knows very well the difference) > used "Free Software" in his title, but examples from BSD-licensed > software in his book. The FSF/GNU culture doesn't make a difference in the capitalisation of "free". It just makes a difference between free as in freedom or free as in beer. -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
