4 ms·
There's nothing in the Free Software definition that requires copy-left licensing and RMS, along with the other FSF members have validated most OSI approved lic
by bad_user 9y ago
There's nothing in the Free Software definition that requires copy-left licensing and RMS, along with the other FSF members have validated most OSI approved licenses as being Free Software, including BSD, MIT, MPL and Apache 2.0.
RMS has said a lot over the years, including that the dual licensing business model (e.g. GPL + proprietary) is a valid business model (i.e. whatever it takes to keep development of the GPL version going). And his opinions don't necessarily reflect the official position of the FSF.
- SEJeff 9y agoHe's also said that proprietary software should be illegal due to it stripping freedoms away from users.
- bad_user 9y agoHe also said that he downloads websites by sending an order by email [1]. That's still irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about what Free Software is and how it compares with Open Source. [1] https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html