Andy Tai wrote:
Free software means a well defined set of software.
Yes, to most English-speaking people it means software that
is free of cost (i.e. gratis).
Whatever you define is not relevant, if it is not
compatible with the well accepted meanings of the
community.
Following your own
on Fri, Jun 14, 2002, Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa writes:
Also, as you can see (if you take the time to read the infos on the site),
not all Open Source licenses are free software licenses.
All software which is OSI Certified Open Source (that is, licensed
John Cowan writes:
Russell Nelson scripsit:
Here's what I call free software:
If you can get the source code, AND
If you can make any changes you want to the source, AND
Not even the MIT or new-BSD licenses allow that: some parts of
the source have to remain invariant.
Rodrigo Barbosa writes:
Also, as you can see (if you take the time to read the infos on the site),
not all Open Source licenses are free software licenses.
All software which is OSI Certified Open Source (that is, licensed
under an approved license) is free software.
--
-russ nelson
Russell Nelson scripsit:
All software which is OSI Certified Open Source (that is, licensed
under an approved license) is free software.
Disproof:
# /usr/bin/perl
# This program is licensed under the Artistic License.
# See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php for terms
John Cowan writes:
The above program is not free software: see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense .
You are presuming two things:
1) that a lack of acceptance is the same thing as rejection, and
2) that RMS defines free software. The term was in wide use
Russell Nelson scripsit:
Here's what I call free software:
If you can get the source code, AND
If you can make any changes you want to the source, AND
Not even the MIT or new-BSD licenses allow that: some parts of
the source have to remain invariant.
If you can create binaries, AND
Begun, this free software war has!;-)
rod
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
John Cowan writes:
The above program is not free software: see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense .
You are presuming two things:
1) that a lack of acceptance is the
Free software means a well defined set of software.
Whatever you define is not relevant, if it is not
compatible with the well accepted meanings of the
community. Software libre, software livre, Tzi4-Yu2
Ran3-Ti3, etc., all are names for the same thing in
different languages of the world. The
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Rod Dixon wrote:
Begun, this free software war has!;-)
Wars not make one great.
Brian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
On Friday 14 June 2002 01:40 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
You are presuming two things:
1) that a lack of acceptance is the same thing as rejection, and
That's how I've always understood it. RMS can't tell whether the original
Artisitic License is free or not so he is reserving judgement. To
On Friday 14 June 2002 01:48 pm, John Cowan wrote:
Russell Nelson scripsit:
Here's what I call free software:
If you can get the source code, AND
If you can make any changes you want to the source, AND
Not even the MIT or new-BSD licenses allow that: some parts of
the source have to
On Friday 14 June 2002 03:14 pm, Andy Tai wrote:
Free software means a well defined set of software.
Free Software refers to complex concept. As such, no single one or two
syllable adjective, in any language, is sufficient to define it. But humans,
being what they are, will conceptualize this
David Johnson wrote in part, in a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is the FSF's definition, which is remarkably similar to your own.
*) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
*) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
*) The freedom to
On Friday 14 June 2002 09:41 pm, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
David Johnson wrote in part, in a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is the FSF's definition, which is remarkably similar to your own.
*) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
*) The freedom to study how the
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
I guess that software licences are right now in the midst of a similar
process of standardisation. Already, there is some kind of
standardisation in software licences. This certification process, and
the terms and phraseology used by software
David Johnson wrote:
p.s. RMS once remarked on this list that the definition of free software,
like the definition of open source, need to be interpreted by people who are
committed to the goals with which those definitions were written. This is a
very wrong attitude to take, and is rather
It is time for the software community to arrive at a consensus on
terminology used in licenses. We should cease to behave like
characters
[...]
then, irrespective of whether you discussed or even actually
knew of the
actual detailed terms, the court will fix responsibility on
the
I.R.Maturana scripsit:
Agree. I strongly suggest to consider also a solution where
contract models are translatable.
That is, fully enforceable in all languages.
The trouble there is that using a different language potentially
drags in a different legal system where the terms may *need* to
Agree. I strongly suggest to consider also a solution where
contract models are translatable.
That is, fully enforceable in all languages.
The trouble there is that using a different language potentially
drags in a different legal system where the terms may *need* to b
different.
, 2002 11:45 AM
Subject: Uniform terminology (Re: UnitedLinux and open source)
It is time for the software community to arrive at a consensus on
terminology used in licenses. We should cease to behave like characters
in Alice in Wonderland (each word shall mean exactly what I choose it
to mean
Sam Barnett-Cormack scripsit:
It's not the fact that they aren't freely distributing binaries themselves,
it's that there seems to be an implication that they are restricting other
people from distributing them, both a) those that they bought (presumably)
from UnitedLinux, and b) those they
Ah-haa... See the problem with the name Open Source?
I hope people in Brazil you just use the name
software livre for Open Source and avoid all the
problems in the English language. I hope the OSI
adapts the name software libre and software livre
as the official translation of the term Open
You are, of course, completly wrong.
Free Software (fsf.org) and Open Source (opensource.org) are
completly different matters.
Please, consult your data before trying to laugh at somebody's
face. Specially when you obviously have no idea what you are talking
about.
As you should know, RMS is
I know everything you are saying. Based on
John Maddog Hall's story
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6129mode=threadorder=0
it seems in Brazil, Software Livre Código Aberto
already by a large margin.
--- Rodrigo Barbosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free Software (fsf.org) and Open
On Friday 07 June 2002 08:30 am, John Cowan wrote:
restricting other people from distributing them, both a) those that they
bought (presumably) from UnitedLinux, and b) those they compiled
themselves without branding.
I read UL's claims as forbidding (a) but not (b).
My take was the
Saw this interview with Ransom Love, Caldera CEO
(http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-928704.html) and was wondering about this exchange:
--
Q: So UnitedLinux will remain an open-source project?
A: Absolutely. The only difference is that the UnitedLinux binaries will not freely
distributed.
, 2002 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: UnitedLinux and open source
Ned Lilly wrote:
Q: So UnitedLinux will remain an open-source project?
A: Absolutely. The only difference is that the UnitedLinux binaries will not
freely distributed. People will be able to download the source code and compile
Hmmm...
Ransom Love loves to hold Linux binaries for ransom.
Whether that follows the OSD or not, the community
should actively oppose Ransom Love, because holding
binaries for ransom is contrary to the spirit of open
source. Hopefully the community leaders like Mr.
Perens and the OSI can
29 matches
Mail list logo
