[Linux-aus] Who defines Open Source?

[Martin Pool]

On  8 Feb 2006, Del <del at babel.com.au> wrote:

> Sometimes I release code as "no license, public domain", which
> is also useful in itself, however it doesn't pass the FSF tests and I'm not
> sure if it even counts as open source or not.

The FSF say 

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#WhatIsCopyleft

  The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public
  domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted.

In their terms it is free software but not copyleft (not
share-and-share-alike/viral/call it what you will). 

> Generally, having the "Open Source Guidelines" is a good idea but I wish
> there was some kind of active international body that approved licenses
> against these guidelines in a timely manner.  I also wish my cats had
> fewer fleas, that might solve the beard problem.  However, both are just
> wishes, and if wishes were horses ...

The issue is not so much the lack of a body, but the lack of agreement
on precisely what the guidelines should be.  The FSF is quite capable of
saying whether something is DFSG-free or vice versa - they just have
different premises.

-- 
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20060208/4b027080/attachment-0001.pgp