On Friday 21 December 2001 17:06, you wrote: > A final thing to consider is license. To be clear, GPL is _NOT_ Open > Source(sm). The Open Source Initiative (Eric Raymond) and the Free > Software Foundation (Richard Stallman) are two opposed groups, they don't > get along too well. > > Apache, FreeBSD, and Mozilla have true Open Source(sm) licenses. > Anything GNU is GPL free software, though the source is open, it's not an > Open Source(sm) approved license -- nor will it ever be as long as Richard > is alive. One glitch to an otherwise excellent post: the GPL *IS* an Open Source(tm) approved license. In fact, if you go to the "approved licenses page" at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/, you'll see that it is the very FIRST license listed. And there's not that much hostility between the FSF and OSI--just philosophical disagreements. And AFAIK, RMS is still alive and kicking--although maybe not kicking as hard as he was before, ever since he got a lot of flack over his comments on the Skylarov case... Hmm--is there any page that succinctly describes the differences between the licences? I'm quite familiar with the GPL, LGPL, BSD, and QPL, but not so well with the others. The legalese tends to make my eyes cross and my vision blur... :Peter