- From: Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:17:12 -0600
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, piranna@gmail.com, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 09:15 +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: > 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. > Agreed. -- /* Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. Visit GNU.org * FSF.org * Trisquel.info */
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 19:17:43 UTC