Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd Oct 2009 22:27 UTC, submitted by twitterfire
Thread beginning with comment 387668
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Linux visibiliity
by DrillSgt on Sun 4th Oct 2009 17:40
in reply to "RE[9]: Linux visibiliity"
They don't recommend but they still acknowledge as free software licenses. Their definition doesn't exclude GPL incompatible licenses. That claim is bogus. So is the claim that they only recommend the GPL license.
I never argued that point. My original reply was a joke, as indicated by the smiley wink face. The definition of course does not exclude GPL incompatible licenses, as that would go against OSI that decides whether a license is Open Source or not. We are saying the same thing, just I made a joke out of mine, thinking you might actually take it as such. I really have to remember that joking on OSNews is bad stuff, as people get bent out of shape too easily.
RE[11]: Linux visibiliity
by Rahul on Sun 4th Oct 2009 17:47
in reply to "RE[10]: Linux visibiliity"






Member since:
2005-07-06
They don't recommend but they still acknowledge as free software licenses. Their definition doesn't exclude GPL incompatible licenses. That claim is bogus. So is the claim that they only recommend the GPL license.