- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 09:15:56 +0300
- To: Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, piranna@gmail.com, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com> wrote: > But simply stating as "not open source" is what is confusing the issue. Which is why I've tried to use expressions like “does not come (in all countries) with full freedoms one would expect from Free Software under the definition of Free Software”. Framing things as “Open Source” or “not Open Source” and then debating whether being Open Source is strictly a matter of copyright license misses the point. For practical purposes, having non-copyright encumberances such as actively enforced patents or having to have keys signed by a certain entity leads to lacking (some of) the freedoms you are supposed to get with Open Source software or Free Software. Having software under a blessed copyright license is little comfort if you can’t actually exercise the relevant freedoms. One might argue that you get more useful freedoms with x264 than with a C code archive of a CDM without robustness certification, but in both cases you don’t get to usefully exercise the full range of freedoms that you are supposed to get with Free Software. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@hsivonen.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 06:16:23 UTC