Hi all, The biggest problem with understanding is that the FREE that is used by GNU is not the word that most Western people using the English language associate with a FREE product.
Most people associate FREE with "no cost", when in fact the use of the term FREE (within this context) relates to "FREEDOM". Open Source tends to encompass the entire range of "source available" products as a generic term. GPL is "most restrictive" in terms of what FREEDOM you have, whereas the MIT/BSD licenses are "least restrictive". Cheers, -- jon St�phane Croisier wrote:
Great definition Jay... I would love that others "free software" fanatics also share your point of view. The open source community has really to learn to differenciate 1) the rights of getting an access to the source code or being able to redistribute it and 2) the rights of using it. This is two things completely different. However due to the current mix open source = free software, this leads to a lot of confusion in the marketplace. Quite a shame for all the softwares that has available source code and that are still considered as "proprietary" by certain analysts or GPL/BSD gurus !
My 2cts
St�phane
[ big snip ] -- Jon Eaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.eaves.org/jon/ -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
