<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Since GNU HERD OS development pretty much stopped (I did install
it a few years back and it was marginally usable) then there is
really no Stallman approved FOSS OS, is there? <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/31/18 3:38 PM, Anthony J. Bentley
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:85894.1546295897@cathet.us">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 12/31/18 2:31 PM, Jonathan Haack wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Also ... imho, the BSD license is not FOSS. Its OS (open source) - and
I think post-TIVOization, that open source and free software mean
different things now. Sorry if I trigger anyone ... just my opinion.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
That opinion isn't shared by the FSF, who consider permissive licenses
to be "free" by their own definition.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html">https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html</a>
Of course, FSF does claim that "free" and "open source" are different.
But they don't claim that permissive licenses, as a type, are not free.
By your definition, Linux would not be FOSS, since the kernel is
licensed under the GPL version 2, and subject to Tivoization. The FSF
came up with the term "Tivoization" in response to the kernel's license.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<img src="cid:part1.BC3CDBE8.C00C6B72@cybermesa.com" border="0"></div>
</body>
</html>