A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

Christopher Dimech dimech@gmx.com
Sun Apr 18 08:00:01 GMT 2021


Please refer to the *Exemptions* section listed in the link below

https://www.commerce.gov/about/policies/source-code

---------------------
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:46 PM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" <siddhesh@gotplt.org>
> To: "Gabriel Ravier" <gabravier@gmail.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
>
> On 4/18/21 1:15 PM, Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote:
> > I'd like to see a source for that. It certainly seems like complete
> > bullshit to me, unless you're trying to tell me that they simultaneously
> > do not fund anything related to free software while also having policy
> > that mandates at least 20 percent of custom-developed code (i.e. code
> > they fund the production of) has to be released as OSS (see
> > https://www.commerce.gov/about/policies/source-code)
>
> You see Free != OSS...
> </troll>
>


More information about the Gcc mailing list