[okfn-discuss] Open Software Service Definition

[Dave Crossland]

2008/8/31 Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de>:
> Dave Crossland dixit:
>
>>> > 2. Whose source code is:
>>> > A. Free/Open Source Software (that is available under a
>>> >     license in the OSI or FSF approved list
>>
>>This should be boolean AND instead of OR because the FSF and OSI lists
>
> That should be "OSD conformant and Free Software according to the FSF's
> definition", as we all know just how much OSI sucks regarding approval
> of "just another" copycenter licence, while dealing a lot with copyleft
> licences. OSD conformance has almost nothing to do with OSI approval.

The definitions are useful to explain the license lists, but are
ambiguous; the combined licenses list is an unambiguous way of
describing what is and is not FOSS.

By using boolean AND, this ensures FOSS is free according to the FSF's
definition without alienating anti-FSF/pro-OS partisans by being too
FSFish.

-- 
Regards,
Dave