ktoosh wrote:How can you say it's not free?
Because the artwork is under a trestrictive license. Not rocket science.
Do you have to pay anything to get Firefox? I don't think so.
free != Free. Further to that, given that the artwork isn't in cvs it can be withdrawn or the licensing on it changed at any time by the copyright holders, which may include charging a fee for use.
Is it free of any restriction on it's use? no, but neither is any other GPL/NPL/MPL or other open-source program.
Yes they are. That's the point, unless you're engaging in a BSD / GPL holy war.
Are you saying that OSS has to be free of any restriction whatsoever? That is just ludicrous. If that were the case, what could you do if you published a piece of software, I came along and changed your name to mine and republished. Nothing.
Nothing is exactly what you can and should be able to do under the license in question. It's worked pretty well up until now. I consider that more important than the perceived threat of a "diluted brand name".
- Chris