Please review our new charter

[list at akfoerster.de]

Am Montag, dem 02. Feb 2009 schrieb simo:

> > Now, opensource is a trademark and has a specific meaning,
> > we want to show support of that.
> 
> False. Open Source is not a Trademark. And its meaning is also often not
> as clear as some people want you to believe, at least not in common
> people's minds.

Well, "Open Source" is not a trademark, but "Open Source Initiative 
Approved License" is.
http://opensource.org/trademark

However on that page you can read "To be eligible to use the mark, you 
must: * Only use the term "Open Source" to refer to software distributed 
under an OSI Approved License."
Does that mean, that you can use no other term, ie. "Free Software", or 
does it just mean, that the license must be OSI Approved?

> can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open
> Source or OS but not FS ?

For example Open Watcom is Open Source, but not Free Software.
http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php


P.S.: I also prefer the term Free Software for my projects.

-- 
AKFoerster