David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/3/9 Sam Liddicott <[email protected]>: > > 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.
Arguing about implications - in other words, arguing against things that no-one has written and one has imagined. That won't end well. It's not just one corner-case: NASA, Reciprocal, Apple, Netscape... probably others. What does this mean? OSI was the Open Source Initiative, an initiative to secure a trademark on "Open Source", to market free software. The initiative failed, the trademark is unobtainable and OSI should have dissolved instead of setting itself up as a bad advocacy-led mix of FSF and debian licence review processes. Two other things:- FSF never claimed FDL is a FS licence. I think it's wrong to have manuals which aren't FS, but we disagree on what software is. I also think it's wrong to give obnoxious ad clause support to legacy publishers, but FSF needs its manuals published. Debian uses the DFSG as *guidelines* (the G), as practical checks of whether *software* (the S) meets the free software definition. Some debian developers are unhappy about OSI using a minimally-modified version the DFSG as a definition for licences instead of guidelines for software. Hope that explains, -- 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
