--- Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:24:35 +0800
Ed Greshko <Ed.Greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
> OK... By that I take it there is no one
universally accepted definition of
> those terms. Otherwise, there would be no need
for all the different
> flavors of the "free" licenses. GPLv2, GPLv3,
FreeBSD, etc...
Each one of those licenses serves a particular
purpose or need. (Whether each
one is actually required is a different question.)
With regard to Free Software in particular, in the
modern computer industry,
the generally accepted definition of Free Software
(notice the capitalization)
is the definition that is provided and promoted by
the Free Software
Foundation. Which is what I sent you to see.
It's a kind of an "industry standard definition",
for lack of a better term.
Many industrial trades, for example, use otherwise
common terms that mean
something "special" in terms of their specific
industry. Free Software is a
good example of an otherwise common term that has a
special meaning in the
computer industry.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~
http://www.melvilletheatre.com
--
Users are invited to look at the following pages for
more resources/to gain a better understanding of the
meanings of Open Source:
Open Source page:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
Licenses by Category:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category
Regards,
Antonio
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com