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. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
