On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Monday 22 June 2009 09:29:40 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
where is the source for this allegation? In the definition of Open Source given in the link above, they make 10 points and none of them 'making entry easier for business'. You may not like Open Source or may disagree with it's goals, but you cannot mislabel it as you are doing. This is the definition:
No, you're misunderstanding my point. It does not make entry easier for business. It does two things:
I have understood your point - you want to spread FUD
- Put things in a "business friendly" language. It's like making meat
flavoured spinach to please the dog. 2) Includes licenses that do not preserve the freedom of the developer
more FUD
And you might want to read the link you provided once again. All it implies is that the licenses should compulsorily provide freedom to the user of the software. It may or may not protect the rights of the developer based on the individual licenses. There is nothing in the link you provided that says something to the effect of "The license must necessarily facilitate sharing back of changes made to original works with the original developer".
The FSM does require that. Both, the rights of the developer and the rights of the user are central to the FSM. BSD licenses are not endorsed by the FSM. They are, by the OSM.