[Linux-aus] Who defines Open Source?
mbp at sourcefrog.net
Wed Feb 8 12:42:04 UTC 2006
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
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20060208/4b027080/attachment-0001.pgp
More information about the linux-aus