Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Sep 2007 21:24 UTC, submitted by Kishe
GNU, GPL, Open Source "A research firm serving the mobile phone industry has published an 18-page whitepaper about open source licensing. Entitled 'GPLv2 vs. GPLv3', the paper examines the meteoric rise of open source software, and the forces that shaped each license, before concluding with an extremely detailed point-by-point comparison."
Thread beginning with comment 275292
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Wrong
by pinky on Sat 29th Sep 2007 22:53 UTC
pinky
Member since:
2005-07-15

I had to read only a few sentences to find the first bullshit (sorry for using this term):

"However where the OSI and the FSF diverge is
that the OSI also require that an OSI approved
open source license should not restrict
commercially important freedoms, such as the
ability to distribute open source and non open
source software together, and to not discriminate
against any persons, field of endeavour or
technology products. This last point is a
particular area of differentiation with the FSF,..."


That's just wrong. That's not where FSF and OSI diverge both are against restriction of any possible use and of course against commercially restriction.
I want to remember the the "Open Source Definition" is nothing more than the "Debian Free Software Guide" so there is absolutely no diverge between OSI and FSF based on their definition of "Open Source" and "Free Software".


...GPLv3 contains wording which appears to
preclude use of GPLv3 covered code in specific
technology areas.


No, GPLv3 doesn't preclude any use. You can use GPLv3 code in any technology areas. But you can't deny your users freedom. That's an important difference.

Edited 2007-09-29 22:54

Reply Score: 15