Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

---

Re: By this definition, GPLed software is proprietary.

Author:	Brett Glass
Posted:	8/23/2000; 5:41:43 PM
Topic:	Next survey: Are you an open source developer?
Msg #:	20030 (In response to 20022)
Prev/Next:	20029 / 20031

Then we agree that, by Stallman's own definition, GPLed code is "proprietary."

As for the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the Open Source Definition: Both say that a license must not discriminate against a field of endeavor. (That's Point #6, which you didn't quote above.) The GPL does discriminate against the creation of commercial software, and therefore is not an open source or "DFSG-Free" license. The person who constructed the page you cite -- Bruce Perens -- has a conflict of interest because he serves on the Board of Directors of a Linux company. The GPL's stated purpose is to discriminate against a field of endeavor, and therefore it does not qualify under either definition.

--Brett Glass

---

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:12 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.