Re: Eucalyptus licence?

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Ben FrantzDale wrote:
> I just saw a new software entry, Eucalyptus on the gnome web site. It
> appears to be "freeware" whatever that means. From what I can tell
> it's only available in bianary format (no src.)
> 
> What's the deal? I thought the stuff on the gnome app list was only
> opensorce (only >= GPL?)
> 

Yes I don't think we want to allow proprietary software on there; it
should at least be labelled PROPRIETARY very clearly. GNOME does support
proprietary development via the LGPL license, but IMHO we don't want to
advertise it on the web page.

As for >= GPL, no, even the FSF web site has non-GPL free software on it.
It's some kind of weird Usenet holy war strawman that part of the free
software community is opposed to non-GPL free software (though many people
think the GPL is the best license, no one is opposed to the other licenses
in the way they might be opposed to proprietary software). The criterion
for inclusion in Debian and in Gnome is simply proprietary vs. free, 
as defined by the Open Source Definition or RMS's explanation on
www.gnu.org, which are 99% identical.

Havoc