semantics

[Andrew Haley]

On 04/02/2010 02:18 PM, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 23:56 -0600, charles zeitler wrote: 
>> Do what thou wilt
>> shall  be the whole  of the Law.
>>
>>
>> On 4/1/10, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/02/2010 05:27 AM, charles zeitler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1) "free and open source software" is redundant ( if it's free software )
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not quite.  FOSS is a umbrella term and using it is one way of avoiding
>>> the free beer vs freedom confusion
>>>
>> yes, i can see that.... ( although i have seen some potentially
>> misleading references to just "open source software" )
> 
> Also, GPL partisans insist that there is a difference between "truly
> free" (i.e., GPL) software and "merely open-source" (i.e., non-GPL)
> software.

No.  The FSF (who are, presumably, GPL partisans) make it perfectly clear
that there are many non-GPL free software licences.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Any software that allows its users all of the freedoms of the Free
Software Definition is free software, by definition.

Andrew.