Similar discussion list but not only for Europe?

[list at akfoerster.de]

Am Montag, dem 09. M�r 2009 schrieb Sam Liddicott:

> * list wrote, On 09/03/09 11:14:
>> Am Montag, dem 09. M�r 2009 schrieb Alfred M. Szmidt:
>>
>>> They are also interested in non-free licenses as well, e.g. the NASA
>>> public license.
>>
>> 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.
>>   
> I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him.
> How is it FUD?

Well, sorry the term FUD maybe doesn't really fit.

I consider this license as an "edge cases". One of very few!
So, while it is a fact that the OSI accepted it while the FSF rejected it,
it doesn't mean, that they are far apart. There's not only black and white.
That also doesn't mean that they are all equal in my view. There are 
differences between the FSF and the OSI, and I clearly prefer the position
of the FSF in most cases. But that doesn't mean that I see the OSI as an 
opponent. They are surely not "also interested in non-free licenses as well".
The FSF just found a bug in this case, which the OSI didn't see.

-- 
AKFoerster