Stefano Maffulli <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] At the moment one can safely assume that all > software classified as Free/LIbre by FSF standard is also Open Source > by OSI standard. [...]
If anyone cares about the differences between the actual approvals, a current pseudo-diff is at http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/fsf-osi-list-diff.txt Many of the differences are a result of process differences. As I understand it, a lawyer advocates a licence in the OSI process, so it requires the licensor to contribute (and many licensors couldn't care less about OSI); but FSF does an independent review, so FSF has to decide it's worth reviewing. In case it's not obvious, I think FSF's independent foundation-led review is much the better of those two. There are two licences that OSI approved but FSF lists as non-free: NASA Open Source Agreement and the Reciprocal Public License. Both of these are "send-back-ware" which many debian developers agree are non-free (OSI's OSDefinition is based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines), but I think an early OSI advisor thought was a good idea, so those approvals look like an OSI bug to me. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
