Re: Gnat Pro and the GPL

["Björn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil>]

Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Björn Persson:
> 
>>The way the FSF defines free software and the way the OSI defines open 
>>source, they are identical.
> 
> No, they aren't.  OSI considers the Apple Public Software License,
> version 1.2, to be an open source license, but the FSF has clearly
> stated that it's non-free.

(I assume you mean the Apple Public Source License. It's best to be 
precise when there are so many similar names.)

Yes, the FSF rejected version 1.2 because it required that modified 
versions of software be published even if they were only used internally 
in an organization. I've heard that it was approved by the OSI by 
mistake, that this problem wasn't discovered before the license was 
approved, but that's unconfirmed.

I made a comparison a while ago and found two OSI-approved licenses that 
the FSF listed as non-free. The other was the Artistic License, which 
the FSF considers too vague: "The problems are matters of wording, not 
substance."

You may be right that the definitions aren't exactly identical, but the 
intention is and has always been that "open source" be another term for 
free software.

Besides, the problem with the APSL 1.2 was resolved in version 2.0, 
essentially by changing "deploy" to "externally deploy".

-- 
Björn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu