4 ms·

Your claim is made dubious by the fact that there exist OSI-approved open source licenses (e.g. BSD) which the FSF says do not qualify as free software licenses

• kragen 5y ago
  You say, "Your claim is made dubious by the fact that there exist OSI-approved open source licenses (e.g. BSD) which the FSF says do not qualify as free software licenses." But you are lying: all the BSD licenses are listed on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html as free software licenses. That page was already linked to in a reply to you 15 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pwdisswordfish8 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pwdisswordfish8 There have been some cases of disagreement in the past between the FSF and OSI, where they differed on how to interpret a license. None of these were major licenses like the BSD license; they were minor disagreements that were quickly resolved, generally by updating the license to eliminate the ambiguity that was the cause of the disagreement. Your claims are made dubious by your repeated posting of supporting claims that are easily shown to be completely false, including by material you have already been referred to in this very same thread.
  • boomboomsubban 5y ago
    There are 2-3 disagreements that did not get resolved, but none of them are major licenses. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Public_License Overall you're correct. The actual differences between free software and open source are trivial.
    • kragen 5y ago
      Oh, thank you! I'd forgotten all about the RPL. You're right.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]