Devuan and Debian need not defer to the Open Source Initiative regarding what is Open Source, since the OSI is just using Debian's Free Software Guidelines. Debian's Free Software Guidelines are a definition of Free Software, not specifically Open Source. At the time they were created, RMS personally approved of them as "a good definition of Free Software".
The Four Freedoms promoted by Richard Stallman did not exist in that form when the DFSG was created. What existed was the *Three* Freedoms, but they were just about to get an online home at that time (the web was in its infancy) and I did not make use of them in creating the DFSG. Sometime later, Richard decided to add Freedom Zero. There isn't a licensing difference between Free Software, Open Source, and DFSG-compliant. Historically, the Open Source campaign spent some time deprecating RMS because Eric Raymond thought he wasn't palatable to business. I never approved of that, it was a mistake, and it's over. But as a legacy we have RMS's effort to differentiate Free Software from Open Source. The remaining difference between Open Source and Free Software, and IMO the only real difference there ever has been, is how they are promoted and who they are promoted to. Richard believes in an *a priori *acceptance of the importance of your freedom. This sells pretty well to some programmers. Open Source presents you with the power of Free Software and allows you to come to the acceptance of the importance of Software Freedom having seen the evidence. This sells well to other programmers and business people. Bruce
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng