[Nottingham] [MEETING] Wed 15 June 2005 - The NLUG Constitution

[Michael Quaintance]

> This is your group. Please read our proposed Constitution and make 
> comment. We can then vote on the idea and 'move forwards'.
> Comments, discussion, feedback *REQUIRED*

You asked for it...

I ask this only as a question, definitely NOT a request or even a 
suggestion.

Is it required/useful to define the terms "Free" and "Open Source"?

I only ask as I am a *BSD user by preference (although likely a linux 
developer by occupation soon) and so my normal definition of "free" is 
not quite what RMS would use to describe it. That said, this is a 
'Linux' group, it says so in the title and I am quite happy with the 
GPL. I use lots of GPL code but prefer to use more permissive licences 
where it is practical to do so.

I especially do NOT wish this to become a licence flame war. I'm happy 
with my choice and hope that others are happy with theirs, whatever 
that choice may be.

There was a discussion the other day on /. about the relative merits of 
supporting alternative platforms which is why I also asked about 
defining "Open Source". Does this include the use of e.g. Firefox, 
OpenOffice.org, Audacity, VLC, etc on non-free platforms? Obviously 
Microsoft Windows is the most likely but the line gets even more 
blurred with Mac OS X and Solaris, etc where UN*X is not so far away 
from the user.

This may all be a non-issue but the thought occurred to me and the 
email asked for comments...

Cheers and feel free to ignore my ramblings.

-Penfold.