You can do whatever you like. I'm just saying that when Andrew said "free", it seemed to me that he was using the more commonly understood definition of the word: you didn't pay anything for FAT, so it's free.
And not to be argumentative, but I picked a random file from edk2 and looked at the license. It pointed me at http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php. And there's nothing at that URL which defines the term "free"... Cameron Esfahani [email protected] "Americans are very skilled at creating a custom meaning from something that's mass-produced." Ann Powers On Aug 8, 2014, at 8:18 AM, Jordan Justen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2014-08-07 11:30:08, Cameron Esfahani wrote: >> I got no skin in this discussion, but I can't leave this be. >> >> You might only have one definition of free software, but I'm >> reasonably confident if you asked any random person who isn't >> involved in the OSS movement what you called something you didn't >> pay for, they'd say it was "free". >> >> Or "stolen", but I like have the optimistic view... > > Would you suggest that we use the "average Joe's" definition of free > for the EDK II open source project then? > > As opposed to the one that opensource.org uses. A site that we > reference in nearly every file in the tree. (FatPkg excluded, > obviously. :) > > -Jordan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
