Hello,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 10:48:42AM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 09:21:51AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> > Nevertheless, not all of the licenses we might discuss in the context of
> > this thread are considered Free by the FSF, so there is a need for other
> > terminology.
>
> Example?
There are plenty of licenses that allow viewing and reuse of the source,
which some people might think of as being "open source", but contain
other stipulations that FSF deem incompatible with their concept of Free
Software.
Here's FSF's list:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses
I don't think there is (or could be) any that are OSDL-approved that
could be considered by FSF as non-Free. But OSI's definition of what
"open source" means isn't the same as everyone else's understanding of
that word.
> Moreover, since this is a Debian list: is there anything DFSG
> which isn't free according to the FSF definition?
I don't think that could happen, but going the other way, there's
GFDL-licensed documentation with invariant sections that say they must
not be altered, which then makes them not-DFSG-free, so Debian strips
them out of packages.
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
