[OT] What is Open Source? (was Re: ANN: Twisted 0.16.0...)

[Huaiyu Zhu]

Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:

>And I admit a slight theoretical possibility I could be wrong.  But go
>look at the license lists---they're the same.  Except for the original
>Perl "Artistic License", which is OSI-certified but in the "non-free"
>group at GNU.  So look close---it's a technical DQ for being _too
>vague_!  Ie, it's not that it's not free---it's that it's not really a
>license according to the FSF.  The exception that proves the rule.

The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 1.2 is listed as "Non-Free
Software License" on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html, mainly
because of "Possibility of revocation at any time".

It is "Open Source Initiative Approved License" listed on
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html.

To me, one counterexample is enough, and one with a clear explanation is
very satisfying.

OTH, I agree with you that to the general public the difference will never
look as big as RMS would want it to be.

Huaiyu