Similar discussion list but not only for Europe?

simo simo.sorce at
Mon Mar 9 16:02:33 UTC 2009

On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 11:21 -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > > 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.
>    The GNU GPL also prevents some free software to be used.
> Use is out of the scope of the GPL, see section 0 of the GPLv2.

Thanks for the attempt to use straw men attacks.

But you know *very* well what I meant.

The GNU GPL does not allow you to mix in code from some other *free
software* licenses as well.

If that was a criteria to judge the freedom of some software the GNU GPL
would be non-free as well. Clearly the GPL is free software, therefore
the simple fact that a license is not compatible with other free
software licenses is not a valid criterium to establish if a license is
free or not. 

>    No the OSI has been realistic this time. The OSI was wrong in
>    accepting the original Apple License for example, but the NASA
>    license is just stupid, but yet a free software license.
> Clearly, it isn't, since it is declared a non-free software license.

Clearly ? Please show a reasoning that does not make the GNU GPL
non-free as well.

>    You are just being unreasonably zealot, but that's as usual.
> Please move such gibberish elsewhere.

Sure, while we have to put up with yours ? ...


More information about the Discussion mailing list