[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:07:08 -0400

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > >Github actively encourages users to specify the license.  (Yes, they
  > >suggest free software as well as open source licenses.)

  > There's a difference?

Yes, there is a practical difference.

  > If you're thinking that "free software" == "copyleft" and "open
  > source" == "non-copyleft", that's actually not the case.  For
  > example, the GPL is both a free software and an open source
  > license, and the same is true of (say) the MIT license.

That is correct.  However, there is a between open source licenses and
free licenses -- in a different area.  A few open source programs use
licenses which are too restrictive to qualify as free.

Fortunately the number of those programs seems to be small.
I think that over 99% of all open source source programs are free.

https://gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html gives
a full explanation.

Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]