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

[Joern Thyssen]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 09:41:43AM +0200, Achim Mueller wrote
> 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.

As Ian pointed out with an URL to gnu.org: FSF do recommend not to use
the term "open source", but rather "Free software". 

gnubg *is* open source, but with the most strict OSS license of them all. 

Jørn