On Monday 10 March 2003 08:04 pm, Chris F Clark wrote: > Actually, as I understand it a must-xxx clause is closer to the > definition of free-software than to "open source".
So let me get this straight. Mandatory requirements included for pragmatic reasons are more aligned with Free Software than with Open Source? Don't you have your terms switched? > ... it is disturbing and offensive to discover > that the software is used "internally" by a corporation to proprietary > advantage... Since the FSF rejects the APSL as being non-free, for the reasons that it regulates how the software may be used internally via a "must-publish" clause, then I'm pretty sure that you've got your terms backwards. > A must-xxx clause levels the playing field by eliminating this > loophole. Utilitarian pragmatism to its finest. Definitely Open Source. p.s. As to where the "official" differences between the FSF/Debian and OSI are in regards to must-publish, I would say it depends heavily on the individual queried. I can find any number of pairs of opposite vocal viewpoints in both "communities". Cheers, -- David Johnson ___________________ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
