On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 14:02, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 11:25, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > The definition of Open Source if pretty clear. > > > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php > > > And so is the definition of Free Software. > > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html > > > > > > The version of the java platform that sun distributes is clearly > > > not-free and not-opensource. Fedora is about providing a free > > > software platform based on the above definitions. > > > > Note that the FSF definition of free is in contrast most other uses of > > the word. Java is 'not-free' only in that fanatical sense. > > ``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand > the concept,you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as > in ``free beer.'' Yes, if you define liberty as being restricted... For example, following the FSF version of 'free' you are restricted from modifying a piece of software so that it uses a library with a different license, then giving that software to someone else who may already have the right to use the other required library. No definition of free or liberty but the unique FSF version can make that understandable. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
