[ILUG-BOM] [Flame Bait] Open Office not upgradable in Linux but possible in Windows.

Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar at gmail.com
Mon Jun 22 10:05:55 IST 2009

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves<lawgon at au-kbc.org> wrote:
> On Monday 22 June 2009 09:29:40 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves<lawgon at au-kbc.org> wrote:
>> > where is the source for this allegation? In the definition of Open Source
>> > given in the link above, they make 10 points and none of them 'making
>> > entry easier for business'. You may not like Open Source or may disagree
>> > with it's goals, but you cannot mislabel it as you are doing. This is the
>> > definition:
>> >
>> > http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
>> No, you're misunderstanding my point. It does not make entry easier
>> for business. It does two things:
> I have understood your point - you want to spread FUD
>> 1) Put things in a "business friendly" language. It's like making meat
>> flavoured spinach to please the dog.
>> 2) Includes licenses that do not preserve the freedom of the developer
> more FUD

And you might want to read the link you provided once again. All it
implies is that the licenses should compulsorily provide freedom to
the user of the software. It may or may not protect the rights of the
developer based on the individual licenses. There is nothing in the
link you provided that says something to the effect of "The license
must necessarily facilitate sharing back of changes made to original
works with the original developer".

The FSM does require that. Both, the rights of the developer and the
rights of the user are central to the FSM. BSD licenses are not
endorsed by the FSM. They are, by the OSM.

Siddhesh Poyarekar

More information about the Linuxers mailing list