Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> 
>    Here, I mean the free and open the same way I mentioned.
> 
>    Why the split, FSF and OSI? OSI is free, but why FSF is not open?
>    :(
> 
> Open source software is not free at all in many cases.  For example,
> the Microsoft Shared Source License is a non-free license, but it is a
> Open source license.  It is a non-free license since it disallows
> commercial distribution.  There are more such examples, see
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html for a list of licenses
> which are free and which are not.

Moronic RMS's characterizations and his "compatibility" verdicts 
aside for a moment, I can't find "a non-free" Microsoft Shared Source 
License (in fact, any of Microsoft Shared Source Licenses -- there are 
many) among 

http://opensource.org/licenses/

What are you talking about, GNUtian ams?

regards,
alexander.