Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:10:08 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com>, Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stallman stalls again Message-ID: <v0422081fb6c9a2923a51@[194.78.241.123]> In-Reply-To: <3AA3E70C.B822C87F@acuson.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010305004222.00cfe2a0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010303132348.04461420@localhost> <Pine.OSF.4.30.0103040637000.3518-100000@student.uq.edu.au> <4.3.2.7.2.20010305004222.00cfe2a0@localhost> <20010305134937.K80474@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010305114235.046da630@localhost> <20010305200017.D80474@lpt.ens.fr> <3AA3E70C.B822C87F@acuson.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:20 AM -0800 3/5/01, David Johnson wrote: > By his own definitions, the BSD license is "freer" > than Mr. Stallman's own GNU licenses. He tells us that copyright is evil > and then encourages us to use an copyright based license. Not the way he seems to define freedom. He contrasts the "Open Source" movement with the "Free Software" movement, by saying that the former allows itself to co-exist in a common market in conjunction with commercial closed-source software, whereas the latter is working to actively eliminate all possibility of commercial closed-source software and to supplant it with *only* so-called "Free Software" (which cannot be taken closed-source). Therefore, the BSD license is more "open" than the GNU license, but by his terms, it is not more "free". -- ====================================================================== Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v0422081fb6c9a2923a51>