On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:24:35 +0800 Ed Greshko <Ed.Greshko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > OK... By that I take it there is no one universally accepted definition of > those terms. Otherwise, there would be no need for all the different > flavors of the "free" licenses. GPLv2, GPLv3, FreeBSD, etc... Each one of those licenses serves a particular purpose or need. (Whether each one is actually required is a different question.) With regard to Free Software in particular, in the modern computer industry, the generally accepted definition of Free Software (notice the capitalization) is the definition that is provided and promoted by the Free Software Foundation. Which is what I sent you to see. It's a kind of an "industry standard definition", for lack of a better term. Many industrial trades, for example, use otherwise common terms that mean something "special" in terms of their specific industry. Free Software is a good example of an otherwise common term that has a special meaning in the computer industry. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
