Re: non-free --> non-dfsg
On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 11:53:37PM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote:
> But that argument assumes that DFSG-free is the be-all and end-all
> of the definition of free software.
It's good enough for us. We decided on one definition that we would
use. If they don't like it, tough shit:->
> The author may believe that his software is free even though it
> isn't DFSG compliant.
Well, even if RMS doesn't care for it, you can pull out the Open
Source definition, which is definitive and specific, and generally
used as the benchmark for what 'free' is.
Ciao,
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
Reply to: