Warp  wrote in message <487cfcb0@news.povray.org>:
>    They want to completely own the word "free"

No, just the "free software" locution.

>		  The OSI has a much more liberal view on this than the FSF
>    but they still have a rather restrictive meaning.

The FSF definition and the OSI definition are very different on the
emphasis they put on various conditions, but technically, they are very very
similar. You need to search carefully in subtle licence clauses to find
licences that are OSI-approved but not FSF-approved.

>						       Especially the FSF
>    definition of "free" (regardless of which dictionary entry you want to
>    use) has little to do with freedom, as their GPL license is extremely
>    restrictive

Note that the GPL is _not_ the FSF definition of software freedom. The
Definition is:

* 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 redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the
  public, so that the whole community benefits.

Maybe you could tell us what definition you would use?

>    (for example you can't take a portion of a GPL software and use it in
>    another software which uses a different license, even if it's an
>    OSI-approved license).

By the way, do you think that this point is a precondition to call a
software free/libre?

Post a reply to this message