Similar discussion list but not only for Europe?

Alfred M. Szmidt ams at
Mon Mar 9 12:37:50 UTC 2009

   > I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him.
   > How is it FUD?

   The implication is that the OSI is not interested in software freedom
   because it disagrees with the FSF on one corner-case. This is
   historically and factually inaccurate.

This "corner case" is clear cut, the NASA Open Source agreement
requires any contribution to be "original", one cannot take bits and
bobs from another project and incopreate it into a NASA Open Source
licensed project.

This is clearly a non-free license, since it violates freedom 3, "the
freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and
modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole
community benefits.".

The OSI disagrees with this freedom, and have decided to list a
license that is not a free software license amongst its approved

I fail to see what is historically inaccureate, or factually
incorrect.  The OSI has listed, and lists licenses that do not adher
to the four freedoms of software, the only conclusion is that they do
not care about software freedom.

More information about the Discussion mailing list