Agreed. The APSL1, the RPL and several other licenses are clearly in violation of the DFSG (and you all know where the OSD comes from). It just seems though that the so-called 'official' definition of 'open source' (OSI) is quite well known, but irrelevant.
Although FSF thinks AFL and OSL are free, but very inconvienient (e.g. the OSL's assent provision). andrew On 1/9/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 09:41:39PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > On 1/8/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Free as in DFSG-free, FSF-free, OSI-open source, etc. > > > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php > > Which is why OSI has become more or less irrelevant these days (as > compared to their old state of mostly irrelevant). > > -- > .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield > : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | > `. `' | > `- -><- | > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFDwf+mlpK98RSteX8RApkHAJ9dLPxrKlh5F91G90cCmwiiFTP9GQCeKFGJ > Y55KfqAx1V0Q9h23tFSx2c4= > =0Bty > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
