Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://c.im/users/LucKeyProductions/statuses/114467325870198113">LucKey Productions (luckeyproductions@c.im)'s status on Thursday, 08-May-2025 15:29:07 JST</a><a href="https://c.im/@LucKeyProductions" title="luckeyproductions@c.im"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/340001-48-20250508062907.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="LucKey Productions" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">LucKey Productions</a><div><a href="https://freesoftwareextremist.com/objects/100f6ca5-7255-4c7d-93f8-cce13b5a8b6e" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a><ul><li></ul></div></section><article><p><a href="https://freesoftwareextremist.com/users/Suiseiseki">@Suiseiseki</a> The open source definition is an almost exact copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. GNU accepts free software require "that you change the name of the modified version [or] remove a logo", which the DFSG and OSD do not (seem to) allow for. One might therefor argue open source is in fact more strict in demanding freedom of the software as a whole than free software is.</p><p><a href="https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#not_just_code" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#not_just_code</a><br><a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#packaging" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#packaging</a></p><p>Note that the three organisations disagree on the approval of several licenses: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses#Approvals" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses#Approvals</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/5014823#notice-9843391">In conversation</a><time datetime="2025-05-08T15:29:07+09:00" title="Thursday, 08-May-2025 15:29:07 JST">about a day ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://c.im/@LucKeyProductions/114467325870198113" rel="external" title="Sent from c.im via ActivityPub">c.im</a></span></span><a href="https://c.im/@LucKeyProductions/114467325870198113">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><article><header><div>Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: www.gnu.org</div><h5><a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#packagingNote">What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</a></h5><div> from <span>mailto:webmasters@gnu.org</span></div></header><div>Since 1983, developing the free Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to share and improve the software they use.</div><footer></footer></article></li><li><article><header><div>Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: login.wikimedia.org</div><h5><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses#Approvals">Comparison of free and open-source software licenses</a></h5><div></div></header><div>This comparison only covers software licenses which have a linked Wikipedia article for details and which are approved by at least one of the following expert groups: the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, the Debian Project and the Fedora Project. For a list of licenses not specifically intended for software, see List of free-content licences.FOSS licenses
FOSS stands for "Free and Open Source Software". There is no one universally agreed-upon definition of FOSS software and various groups maintain approved lists of licenses. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is one such organization keeping a list of open-source licenses. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) maintains a list of what it considers free. FSF's free software and OSI's open-source licenses together are called FOSS licenses. There are licenses accepted by the OSI which are not free as per the Free Software Definition. The Open Source Definition allows for further restrictions like price, type of contribution and origin of the contribution, e.g. the case of the NASA Open Source Agreement, which requires the code to be "original" work. The OSI does not...</div><footer></footer></article></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
LucKey Productions (luckeyproductions@c.im)'s status on Thursday, 08-May-2025 15:29:07 JSTLucKey Productions
in reply to
- 翠星石
@Suiseiseki The open source definition is an almost exact copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. GNU accepts free software require "that you change the name of the modified version [or] remove a logo", which the DFSG and OSD do not (seem to) allow for. One might therefor argue open source is in fact more strict in demanding freedom of the software as a whole than free software is.
https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#not_just_code
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#packaging
Note that the three organisations disagree on the approval of several licenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses#Approvals
In conversationabout a day ago from c.impermalink
Attachments
1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: www.gnu.org
  What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
  from mailto:webmasters@gnu.org
  Since 1983, developing the free Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to share and improve the software they use.
2. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: login.wikimedia.org
  Comparison of free and open-source software licenses
  This comparison only covers software licenses which have a linked Wikipedia article for details and which are approved by at least one of the following expert groups: the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, the Debian Project and the Fedora Project. For a list of licenses not specifically intended for software, see List of free-content licences. FOSS licenses FOSS stands for "Free and Open Source Software". There is no one universally agreed-upon definition of FOSS software and various groups maintain approved lists of licenses. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is one such organization keeping a list of open-source licenses. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) maintains a list of what it considers free. FSF's free software and OSI's open-source licenses together are called FOSS licenses. There are licenses accepted by the OSI which are not free as per the Free Software Definition. The Open Source Definition allows for further restrictions like price, type of contribution and origin of the contribution, e.g. the case of the NASA Open Source Agreement, which requires the code to be "original" work. The OSI does not...

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice