[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [gNewSense-users] gNS accepted licenses

From: Kevin Dean
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] gNS accepted licenses
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:38:16 -0400

I don't really see what's hard about this concept... The definition of
"Free Software" has existed since the GNU project and the FSF were
created in 1985. We're not redefining ANYTHING, we're just the first
project to ENFORCE it in what is distributed.

There is a huge distinction between software that is licensed under "A
Free Software License" and what is truly "Free Software" by the
definition established over 20 years ago. if you need any more proof,
I urge you to look into the concepts of "Tivoization" and the
Microsoft/Novell deal, these to things indicate very clearly that all
threats to Free Software are not license centric... It IS possible to
have non-Free software released under the GPL - It's exactly why the
GPL is going into revision three... The wording of version 2 allowed
GPL software to become non-Free.

As for the Debian Free Software Guidelines.... They are a rewording of
the Free Software Philosophy. From Bruce Perens, the author of the
DFSG, himself "When I helped create 'Open Source' it was a way to lead
business people
into Free Software. It was not meant as a rejection of Stallman's
philosophy, but as a gentle introduction to it for people who would come
at it from an economic perspective."

gNewSense does not, has not and will not redefine the defintion of
Free Software. It has always been four-freedom centric. The freedoms
existed BEFORE there was a GPL, before there was a "Free Software
License". Threats to the four freedoms motivated RMS to do something -
it's why there is "Free Software" to this day.

On 4/19/07, Koh Choon Lin <address@hidden> wrote:
> For instance, there are binary blobs in the Linux kernel that is
> licensed under the GPL, you can't reasonably modify these blobs, so it
> violates freedoms 1 and 3 are violated, so gNewSense doesn't ship
> them.

Please note that I am not criticizing gNewSense below. I do encourage
everyone to move to this platform instead of the newly release 7.04 of

In a way, gNewSense does not really look at the license of a software
before it is accepted. I mean, Linux is already GPLed but it is not
free enough for the project. Thus, I would advocate for a new
"definition" of free software from gNewSense which might be needed in
the near future, a la the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Koh Choon Lin

reply via email to

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