Re: How about creating

On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 10:41 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:

Hi Johannes!

> > Sure, however, why not open-source software?

> As far as I see it, there is a clear definition for free software while
> "Open Source" can refer to many things and while all free software is open
> source not all open source software is free software.

> The minimal definition of open source is that you can look at the source
> code, that is not enough if you may not share/change/distribute/etc. it.
> All other definitions of open source are rather weak. There is the OSI[1]
> definition but there are also others.
> Point 4 of the OSI definition would be rather annoying for GNOME in
> pratical terms.

GNOME could allow all open source software[1] that is compatible with LGPL,
for example. I guess that's reasonable given that most lib* projects of
GNOME are LGPL. Now that copyright reassignment must be preapproved on a
case-by-case, GNOME could add "no copyright assignment requirement" to
the list of "when in doubt" too. Etcetera.

> IMHO this is leading to nothing and it is far easier to stick to open
> source. In the terms above there is a clear text saying that you should
> contact the release-team when in doubt. If you have a non-free but open
> source license then I am pretty sure there is some doubt.

I agree with sticking to open source with a text saying that you should
contact the release-team when in doubt, and that this is far easier.





Philip Van Hoof
freelance software developer
Codeminded BVBA -

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]