GPL is not Open Source

brihana25 Wrote:
 
> Since you say "us," I am assuming that this post will be forwarded
> to people other than yourself.  So be it.

When I say "us" I mean it in the most general way. This is a public 
listserv and can be viewed by anyone anywhere at anytime now or in the 
future without anyone being a member of the list.

Example:
http://www.xaraya.com/newsgroups/thread.php?group=xaraya.curiosa

> I ask you in return, why should there not be a DDF?  Why should the 
FSF be
> the only Open Source advocacy corporation in existence?

Because it's redundant? Maybe the DDF can sponsor and collaborate with 
the FSF or visa versa over the GPL license? I don't understand 
where "competition" comes into play in a non proprietary environment.
 
> To say that the DDF is unnecessary due to the existence of the FSF
> is to stand against the main tenet of Open Source.

GPL is not Open Source however Open Source accepts GPL as Open Source. 
The FSF tries to make this painfully clear. This is where the FSF & 
GPL are bound together philosophically not just legally.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html  

Perhaps the DDF can help "Open Source" in the same manner as the 
Apache Foundation but it seems the the "GPL" is doing fine with the 
FSF. These are 2 separate movements ideologically but with similar 
goals.

Greg