Re: ARM opensource

[Bill Gatliff <bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:32:56PM +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 03:45:51PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 09:23:16AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>>>> But Linux is Free Software, not open source.
> 
> Clarification, I think I understand the confusion.
> 
> Bill seems to imply that free software is less restrictive than open
> source software, Russell wants to point out that it isn't. The GPL is a
> rather restrictive license, there are less restrictive open source
> licenses like the BSD and MIT licenses.

The term "restrictive" is wide open for interpretation. I'm not gonna go 
there, I've visited one hornet's nest too many today already.

Linux is "Free Software" using the term as defined by the FSF, 
specifically because Linux uses the GPL2 as its distribution license.  I 
don't think there's much room for interpretation there, and I'm not 
suggesting that Russell was (or wasn't) arguing that point.  I just 
wanted the OP to not casually toss terminology around, given the nature 
of their question.

There are fundamental differences between the GPL and prototypical "open 
source", OSI-approved licenses like BSD and MIT.  Thus, the terms "Free 
software" and "open source software" are not interchangeable.

It's true that a subset of OSI-approved licenses are also licenses that 
FSF defines as being Free, but it's only a subset.  The other 
OSI-approved "open source" licenses are clearly not Free, so you can't 
be completely accurate when you say that Linux is "open source" software 
and leave it at that.

If one isn't going to just say that "Linux is GPL'ed software" and leave 
it that (something I now regret not doing!), I think the only term that 
accurately and concisely describes the distribution terms for Linux is 
the term "Free Software" (note carefully the capital-F!), as defined by 
the FSF.

But you don't have to agree with me for me to be right.  :)

P.s.  Since I'm stung already, I may as well go on record as saying that 
according to my definition of "restrictive" as applied to the questions 
here, I choose to conclude that the GPL is LESS restrictive than any 
other OSI-approved license, because it doesn't allow someone to restrict 
my access to source code for a product containing it.

See my point?


<waves hands, swats at hornets, runs away again>



b.g.
-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm
FAQ:        http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/faq.php
Etiquette:  http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php