3 ms·

MIT, Apache, and BSD are "GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses" according to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses http

by geofft 6y ago

MIT, Apache, and BSD are "GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses" according to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatible... I gather you have some meaning of Free Software that is different from what the FSF means by it, and also different from what groups like Debian and Fedora mean by it. Can you expand on what you mean by "Free Software" and what relationship it has with the "Free Software" movement as defined by the FSF, Debian, Fedora, etc.? Do you think that the FSF, therefore, works within "the Spirit of Open Source", that contributors to glibc are working for the FSF, which can ignore them?

pessimizer 6y ago
> "GPL-Compatible" Of course they are. They can be placed into GPL software. They can be placed into any software. > Do you think that [...] contributors to glibc are working for the FSF, which can ignore them? Yes.
- geofft 6y ago
  You're selectively quoting. The important part wasn't that the FSF claims that those licenses are "GPL-Compatible," which nobody disputes; the important part was that the FSF claims that those licenses are "Free Software Licenses." Do you dispute that? Elsewhere in this thread you imply that you believe that the GPL is not an Open Source license. Can you clarify that, too? Because, again, it sounds like you're using terms that don't match what the Free Software and Open Source communities mean by those terms. (In particular, GNU would disagree with this claim - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html - as would the OSI, of course.) So you should define them.