[GNUz] How does GLU/GNUz differ from CLUG?

[Timothy Musson]

Jim Cheetham wrote:
> The FSF also compares other licenses to its ideals
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ where you will discover that
> the Apache license is incompatible with the GPL. I guess that means
> that the GNU cannot use an apache webserver?

Apache's license still qualifies as a Free Software license, so it's
perfectly okay as part of any GNUish OS.

GPL compatibility "means you can combine a module which was released
under that license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger
program".

  [...]

"The Apache License is incompatible with the GPL because
it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain
patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think
those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but
nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)"[1]

  [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html


> I'm separating the terms (pointing out the existing separation)
> because juxtaposng the *words* "GNU" and "Linux" cause a lot of
> friction, and the flames generated prevent people from working
> together properly. *BSD uses far less GNU than a "linux", so from that
> perspective being "pro GNU" is less inclusive of BSD than "pro FSF".

> I guess "FSANZ" is basically a good idea IMHO, and better/more
> inclusive than "GNUz".

I think so too. It's the Free (i.e. liberty) aspect that makes Free
Software worthwhile: not any particular Operating System.


> >Also, see DRAFT-1 http://www.infohelp.co.nz/fsanz-constitution.html as
> >of today (bookmarking recommended). Clarity has been introduced re this
> >orientation for the association.

> I'll have a proper look at that later :-)

Me too! :^)


Tim
-- 
trmusson@ihug.co.nz