- From: Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:54:14 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Le dim. 02/06/13, 16:29, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>: > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote: > > > Mark Watson: > >> Sure. I meant that some people would like the W3C policy to refer to > >> Free Open Source rather than just Open Source. > > > > The term "Free and Open Source Software" (FOSS) could or should be used > > instead of Open Source. But that would not result in any practical > > difference because all Free / Copyleft licenses are also Open Source > > licenses. > > The converse is not true, though (IIUC). I am not sure I understand what you mean. If we take the software licenses as the metric to qualify what is Open Source and what is Free Software, then surely the list of licenses held by - the Open Source Initiative - the Free Software Foundation are authoritative lists. If you take a look at their list, you will notice that except for one exception on which they disagree (on a license of no importance) their lists are exactly the same. Open Source == Free Software. (I suppose you are confusing with another type of distinction among Free Software/Open Source licenses, and that is the difference between copyleft and non-copyleft licenses). > > > > > More precise would be referring to the Open Source Definition > > (http://opensource.org/docs/osd) and the list of OSI-approved licenses > > (http://opensource.org/licenses). > > I understood that not all those licenses would qualify as 'FOSS'. Am I > using the term FOSS incorrectly ? Yes, this is incorrect. All those licenses would qualify as FOSS. -- Hugo Roy | Free Software Foundation Europe, www.fsfe.org FSFE Legal Team, Deputy Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/legal FSFE French Team, Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/fr/ Support Free Software, sign up! https://fsfe.org/support
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 10:54:53 UTC