>9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

So, under this definition, the GPL isn't an open-source license.

> So, under this definition, the GPL isn't an open-source license.

Untrue. The GPL does not "insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be" licensed in any particular way. [1] And the GPL has been reviewed and is an OSi approved license, which means its been found to be consistent with the definition by the people that wrote the definition. [2]

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

[2] http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license

I stand corrected. Thank you. I guess I shouldn't assume I understand any document that is complex enough to warrant a preamble.

"software distributed along with the licensed software" is to handle the case of distributing a CD with multiple software packages (shareware CD, or your typical linux install disc).

The GPL says nothing about other software.

Which is why rms and the FSF are careful to distinguish between "free" and "open".