Re: [Bug-gnubg] GnuBg copyright in FAQ nitpick

[Achim Mueller]

Am Mon, 2003-06-09 um 11.40 schrieb Alef Rosenbaum:
> > I don't think you should be using the term "open source" in the FAQ. My
> > reading of the licences is that  the GNU GPL is a different thing. I think 
> > it
> > should read:

Using these terms is a bit difficult. The term "open source software"
was once taken to bundle licenses like GPL, LGPL, The Xfree licence,
Mozilla license ...

Companies using this software have been a bit confused and unsure about
the rights/law before. This is one reason why OSS was defined in the
late 90ies.

Concerning the opensource website at
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php gnubg is Open Source
(besides the neural nets ?!).
 
> > GNU Backgammon is Free Software and ....
> 
> 
> Another reason for using "free software" rather than "open source" is that
> non-programmers will instantly understand it.

I don't think so. Free software very often is confused with "software
you don't have to pay money for." This does not include the source code.
I think this is rather a politically question than a technical one.

> Unless I hear otherwise, I'll remove "open source" from the FAQ.

I don't mind.

Ciao

Achim
-- 
achim mueller, anne-frank-str. 25, D-48431 rheine
+49 (0)5971 83767, +49 (0)163 8458340
-------------------------------------------------
pgp/gnupg key: 1024D/5DF3A722 (wwwkeys.de.pgp.net)

signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil