<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for brmj</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/brmj/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/brmj/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:13:56 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: FOSS Windows</title><link>http://www.geekherocomic.com/2009/02/09/foss-windows/#comment-11662310</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"First of all, it should be clear that Free and Opensource is technically the same, the only difference is in ideology. "&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Not quite true, actually, though it is fairly close. Here's what rms has to say on that topic: "The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and too long to cite here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects, so open source supporters have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice."  (from &lt;a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html)" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html)"&gt;http://www.gnu.org/philosop...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, though, I am in complete agreement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brmj</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:13:56 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>