I am much more concerned about the fact that Open Source accepts
an increasing variety of licenses
Actually there is just a small difference between the set of licenses
that are defined as open source and the set that we define as free
software. There is only one known case where we
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually there is just a small difference between the set of licenses
that are defined as open source and the set that we define as free
software. There is only one known case where we disagree, and that is
the Apple license.
APSL 1.0, APSL 1.1, or
If anything, GNOME is part of the "GNOME movement" - any other group
trying to take credit for it or call it their own, should reconsider
their position.
The "G" in GNOME stands for GNU. GNOME is part of the GNU project.
Just in case you had not noticed ;-)
Miguel.
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
software. There is only one known case where we disagree, and that is
the Apple license.
Excuse me. That was originally said in conjunction with a few other things
that I ended up taking out, because I couldn't figure out how to word it
properly.
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
I agree with Richard that GNOME should be classified of part of the Free
Software movement.
I'm glad you said something -- I almost jumped in, but I'm not involved with
Gnome.
We are not working on GNOME because it is "economically" a good idea,
X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy
*Coughs politely*
Jacques Chester [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Fifthly, the possible conclusions so far are:
* That ESR is completely correct, that Free Software *does* break
the
LODR and that it represents a new economic phenomenon in
production
* That
Hello there;
I'm sending this email to a number of people. The majority of you
have already been asked in the past about what I am going to
describe. Namely, I have asked most of you to perform a
peer review of an essay about economics and free software.
Some of you have *not* been asked
7 matches
Mail list logo
