Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Oct 2005 21:43 UTC
"Open source advocates are doing what was once unthinkable - giving the thumbs up to a Microsoft source code licensing program. The Free Software Foundation has said new licenses for Microsoft's pseudo open source program, the Shared Source Initiative, appears to satisfy the four requirements defining Free Software." So, what does it mean for you? Update: A description of the changes.
Thread beginning with comment 49032
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
Code can't have freedom, people can.
Which version of English do they use in your country? The very first definition for "freedom" on dictionary.com is:
The condition of being free of restraints.
Can a license ensure that the code remains in a "condition of being free of restraints"? Sure! Ergo, a license can, by definition, ensure the freedom of code.
Ah, the subtleties of the English language! The same word can not only have multiple definitions, but can be applied to a variety of subjects depending on context!
Actually, its not even that subtle. The claim that only people can have freedom can immediately be seen to be incorrect in the face of expressions like "freedom to roam" or "degrees of freedom", which can be as easily applied to animals, robots, and mechanical components as people!