Comments on: What are open source and free software? http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2007/11/28/what-are-open-source-and-free-software/ open source software innovation support centre Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:30:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ramón Casero Cañas http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2007/11/28/what-are-open-source-and-free-software/comment-page-1/#comment-139 Ramón Casero Cañas Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:36:10 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2007/11/28/what-are-open-source-and-free-software/#comment-139 There is an excellent column by C. O'Riordan (FSFE) that explains that the <a href="http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7188273245.html" title="LinuxDevices.com: How GPLv3 tackles license proliferation" rel="nofollow">FSF approach to tackle the problem of licence proliferation</a> is making the GPL v3: * more adaptable to the needs of various projects * compatible with more Free Software licenses (notably the Apache License) There is an excellent column by C. O’Riordan (FSFE) that explains that the FSF approach to tackle the problem of licence proliferation is making the GPL v3:

* more adaptable to the needs of various projects

* compatible with more Free Software licenses (notably the Apache License)

]]> By: Ross Gardler http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2007/11/28/what-are-open-source-and-free-software/comment-page-1/#comment-138 Ross Gardler Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:13:13 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2007/11/28/what-are-open-source-and-free-software/#comment-138 <cite>I believe that at this point the need to standarize licences, make them compatible and reduce their number outweights the risk of the FSF going awry, and hence I’m happy with the statement “Free software is software released under a licence approved by the FSF”.</cite> Given that I (as an individual) do not have the resources that the FSF has to evaluate licences I too am happy to defer to the FSF for the purpose of identifying free licences. It is also worth noting that the FSF also have the concept of "copyleft" licences, that is those that require all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. The FSF judgement on whether a licence is copylieft is useful to me too. Ensuring compatability between licences is, in my opinion, another extremely important issue. The FSF licence page you link to is a fantastic resource here. Clearly stating whether a licence is compatible with the GPL or not. I also agree that the problem of licence proliferation is a considerable one. And this brings me to my question. The open source initiative are actively trying to <a href="http://www.opensource.org/proliferation" rel="nofollow">reduce the number of widely used open source licences</a>, although it has to be said progress is limited. Does the FSF have a similar objective? I believe that at this point the need to standarize licences, make them compatible and reduce their number outweights the risk of the FSF going awry, and hence I’m happy with the statement “Free software is software released under a licence approved by the FSF”.

Given that I (as an individual) do not have the resources that the FSF has to evaluate licences I too am happy to defer to the FSF for the purpose of identifying free licences. It is also worth noting that the FSF also have the concept of “copyleft” licences, that is those that require all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. The FSF judgement on whether a licence is copylieft is useful to me too.

Ensuring compatability between licences is, in my opinion, another extremely important issue. The FSF licence page you link to is a fantastic resource here. Clearly stating whether a licence is compatible with the GPL or not.

I also agree that the problem of licence proliferation is a considerable one. And this brings me to my question. The open source initiative are actively trying to reduce the number of widely used open source licences, although it has to be said progress is limited. Does the FSF have a similar objective?

]]>