<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
* list wrote, On 09/03/09 11:14:
<blockquote cite="mid:20090309111408.GA3992@castrophe.akfoerster.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Am Montag, dem 09. M�r 2009 schrieb Alfred M. Szmidt:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> > > You might also want to contact the OSI about this.
>
> As far as I understand, OSI is more oriented to less-restrictive
> open source licenses, right?
No, by definition OSI is interested in all Free Software licenses
(which they call "open source") - this includes the licenses with
strong freedom protection like GNU GPLv3.
They are also interested in non-free licenses as well, e.g. the NASA
public license.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Stop spreading FUD!
It is true that this license was accepted by the OSI but rejectet by the FSF.
But it just was a rather minor problem why it was rejected by the FSF.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him.<br>
<br>
How is it FUD?<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
</body>
</html>