Ian Lance Taylor writes:
 > However, a license like the NPL provides additional rights beyond that
 > to the original author.  Those are the rights I was thinking of.  As I
 > read the NPL, it permits Netscape to take modifications made by other
 > people and repackage them as proprietary software.

Ahhhh, I see.  Anybody who's interested in dual-licensing is going to
have a similar requirement, even if it's not enshrined in the license.
I don't want to discourage dual-licensing, since that requirement
would probably bring about a single proprietary license, rather than a 
single "free" (your definition) license.

 > Anyhow, arguing these details misses my larger point, which is that I
 > believe that people have become able to speak of the differences
 > between free software and open source software.

Some people talk about the differences between free software and
GPL'ed software.

 > I see this in the discussions on slashdot, for example, where
 > people talk about ESR vs. RMS.  Perhaps these people are mistaken.

Set your threshold to four, and I think you'll get a different impression.

-- 
-russ nelson <rn-sig@crynwr.com>  http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok |   There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |   that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |   cause of world peace.