Why do you get into what you don’t care about? The discussion is not with you, or at least I don’t agree to discuss anything with you. Dont come to teach me because u will NOT.
I not newbie in OSI and FSF things, for some deep techniques reason i say that both are incompatibles, i know some licenses between OSI and FSF will OK, but thats making fakes GNUs systems, like Pure OS, i moved to Trisquel already and i will stop investing my time in this opensource forum/peoples. Next week i will be a RMS conferences. 
-
I care and know a great deal about software licenses. How dare you accuse me of “not caring”. Pretty much the only thing I applaud Purism for is that they are following their promises in regard to upstreaming (which is harder than it sounds) and licenses.
-
The discussion is public. If you don’t want to see my input and wish to remain uninformed then block me. Others will still be able to see and decide for themselves whether I’m contributing to the discussion.
I’ve been using Linux since 1994 and emacs since 1987-88. I’ve contributed to many FOSS projects and even manage 2-3 of my own.
At this point I think everyone can read the links I gave and will understand that dcz was absolutely correct and that you are simply “virtue signaling” ( I hate borrowing a phrase from those I disagree with politically, but when it fits, it fits).
The fact is that the Tor Project is 3-clause BSD (a.k.a. “Modified BSD”) ( https://github.com/torproject/tor/blob/main/LICENSE ) and the FSF says that this license if Free ( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html says “This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.” ). There are add-ons with other licenses. You will see that the FSF agrees that those are Free too.
IMO, if the FSF says they are Free, they are Free.
Virtue signaling again? Have fun and, IMO, you should stop taking yourself so seriously.
If you dare, ask RMS whether he thinks the Tor Project is Free. I already know the answer.
1 Like
Seems you are really confused, because one software can be truly Free Software then next day will be fake free software, exemple Tor browser, Libreboot, Debian, etc,etc. To me opensource licenses are MIT or MPL, but GPL licenses are free software not opensources.
Let’s have a look at: https://opensource.org/licenses/ :
Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition – in brief, they allow software to be freely used, modified, and shared. To be approved by the Open Source Initiative (also known as the OSI) a license must go through the Open Source Initiative’s license review process.
Listed licenses approved to comply to the Open Source definition include:
1 Like
So do you mean that GPL is opensh!t?
GPL is both Free and Open Source.
1 Like
You are complete wrong.
GPL is free software and could be opensource for non free software user.
I posted a link to the OSI page to proof that GPL is Open Source.
Could you also proof what you are stating? You are wrong.
1 Like
opensh!t just renamed all open licenses to opensource, but GPL it formally Free Software.
GPL is both Open Source and Free.
OSI states it is Open Source.
FSF states it is Free.
1 Like
FSF is ownership for GPL, not the OSI.
FREE does not mean anything. just Free Software, you need learn more.
It is correct that the FSF has the copyright for the GPL license text but that does not matter here. The GPL complies with the OSI’s definition for Open Source and therefore software with the above mentioned GPL licenses is Open Source software. 
That’s about definition. GPL is no software, therefore the GPL cannot be Free Software.
Software under GPL license is Free Software. When I wrote ‘Free’ before I logically meant Free in terms of the FSF Free Software definition.
Sorry, mate.
1 Like
Definition matter to be clear, at the moment there are ridiculous terms under GPL, OSS FLOSS,FOSS.
Well you call whatever you want to GPL not just opensh!t but genuine it is Free Software.
No sir.
If you love opensource go for Haiku or BSD, IOS. Pure OS it purely Free Software. Yeah Ubuntu it there too if you love opensource ideology.
That’s correct and while I keep backing up my statements with some evidence, you just counter with ‘no’ and continue with some platitudes.
I’m thinking about coding a bot (applying GPL license to it so that it is Open Source and Free Software) which only keeps making forum posts with beep blub, GPL is a software license for both Free Software (FSF) and Open Source Software (OSI).
1 Like
Too bad, you just doing what other antiRMS and cheaper programmer they doing.
You can, but does not genuine.
Why is applying GPL license to some software “antiRMS”? He wrote that license text. And last time I saw him live here in Germany I remember he still encourages people to use GPL.
Yes, it is. I backed that with evidence.
1 Like
I KNOW but u are really influenced for other cheaper opensources. This forum is for free software Purism Pure OS systems, this not Ubuntu forum to talk too much for opensources. opensource it better than propietary, but Free Software is the best than propietary and openfunny.
OSI it same like Pine64, just cloning everything… =)
You are the one confused. You really need to read more from the FSF link I provided ( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html ). This is RMS’s views on all of the various well-known licenses and whether they are “Free” (or not), “Copyleft” (or not), and compatible with various GPL licenses (or not).
- MIT. The link talks about confusion with the MIT license, but whether this is the X11 License version or the Expat License version, RMS says about the MIT License:
This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
- MPLv2.
This is a free software license. Section 3.3 provides indirect compatibility between this license and the GNU GPL version 2.0, the GNU LGPL version 2.1, the GNU AGPL version 3, and all later versions of those licenses.
That should give you a clue that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t seem to understand that something could be both OpenSource and Free. You also seem to confuse “Free” with “Copyleft”. The point of Copyleft is that it disallows contributors from adding things and licensing the additions in a non-Free way.
There are tons of Free licenses (many, but not all, Opensource licenses are Free), but the main “Copyleft” licenses are things like the GPL (various versions), CDDL, MPL, … There are good discussions, such as why the MPLv1 is copyleft, but is not compatible with the GPL licenses (it’s basically the same reason why the GPLv2-only license is not compatible with GPLv3) while the MPLv2 is compatible with the GPL. I fear, though that this is all above your head and that you’ll simply continue freaking out.
Here’s the definition of Copyleft: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.html
This thread is a dumpster fire, I regret my involvement in it, and carlosg is clearly trolling or unwilling to engage in what others are saying.
I’m issuing a notice to all involved including myself that forum rules say
and I’m closing this thread on the grounds that it’s been derailed at the very start. Please open the question again if you feel like it, and we’ll try to keep it useful.
4 Likes