RMS (again)

[Patrick Fleming EA]

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Derek Neighbors wrote:

> > something related to open source software --
> > we also support GNU, BSD, X11, Mozilla, etc. --
> > but Mr. Stallman wouldn't like that either since
> > not all of "etc" is "Free Software".
> 
> Mind you software need not be GPL or from the GNU project to be 'free 
> software'.  I am somewhat curious what 'open source' we are promoting 
> heavily that is not indeed 'free software'?
> 
> All you have listed in your rant are free software.

Are they? If you use RMS' definition: "When we speak of free software, we 
are referring to freedom, not price..." then they are not free software.
While I personally agree that a developer/programmer should be allowed to 
choose whichever license they prefer- a point not truly to Stallman's 
liking- I also realize that doing so may limit the freedom of the end 
user. Stallman argues that the end users freedom to change and modify 
software should never be restricted. So, while he can be a little 
abrasive, and even gets upset that the GNU project was out there before 
Linus came along and created a kernel(and got the 'glory' of it being 
named Linux) he has a point. Like him or not, he is still free to choose 
what he will or won't do.


http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licence.html

"
XFree86 Licensing Information

 The XFree86 Project is committed to providing freely redistributable 
binary and source releases. The main licence we use is based on the 
traditional Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) X11/X Consortium 
licence. Often called the Xll-licence, this licence does not impose any 
conditions on the modification or redistribution of either the source code 
or binaries other than requiring that copyright and/or licence notices are 
left intact. These terms are consistent with the Open Source definition. "


http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html

Mozilla allows for different portions of the software to have different 
licensing conditions, thereby allowing some derivative to contain 
proprietary code(as I read it).

http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
BSD(and more specifically freeBSD in this case) allows for modification 
with no source code distribution requirement- hence M$ use of BSD code in 
Windows.

"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are 
met:

  1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the 
  documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE FREEBSD PROJECT ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS 
OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED 
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE 
DISCLAIMED... "



> 
> -Derek
> 
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> 
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> 

-- 
Patrick Fleming, EA
http://myhdvest.com/patrickfleming
Licensed to represent taxpayers
before Exam, Appeals, and Conference 
divisions of the IRS