From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a875d9649dde34e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newspeer1.se.telia.net!se.telia.net!masternews.telia.net.!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Persson?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: sv, sv-se, sv-fi, en-gb, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Gnat Pro and the GPL References: <4e8fe302b927b504b93983dba6b0d79f@localhost.talkaboutprogramming.com> <87y8imp52w.fsf@insalien.org> <9kW8d.105219$dP1.389040@newsc.telia.net> <1097089376.21653@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <87llejf4cp.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> In-Reply-To: <87llejf4cp.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:00:29 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.209.116.179 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 1097164829 217.209.116.179 (Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:00:29 CEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:00:29 CEST Organization: Telia Internet Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4878 Date: 2004-10-07T16:00:29+00:00 List-Id: Florian Weimer wrote: > * Bj=F6rn Persson: >=20 >>The way the FSF defines free software and the way the OSI defines open = >>source, they are identical. >=20 > 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=20 precise when there are so many similar names.) Yes, the FSF rejected version 1.2 because it required that modified=20 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=20 mistake, that this problem wasn't discovered before the license was=20 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=20 the FSF considers too vague: "The problems are matters of wording, not=20 substance." You may be right that the definitions aren't exactly identical, but the=20 intention is and has always been that "open source" be another term for=20 free software. Besides, the problem with the APSL 1.2 was resolved in version 2.0,=20 essentially by changing "deploy" to "externally deploy". --=20 Bj=F6rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu