Re: non-free --> non-dfsg
> Ok, just goes to show I haven't had one of these conversations with the
> mew-maintainer team.
> However, the DFSG is clearly agreed to by the majority of developers, or it
> would not exist.
Indeed, just as I agree with it (except for my occassional "suggestions"
> If software is not DFSG-free, there is something in its license that limits
> its use as free software. If the author intended their software to be used
> and distributed and developed freely, there is indeed something wrong that
> they should know about.
But that argument assumes that DFSG-free is the be-all and end-all of the
definition of free software. The author may believe that his software is
free even though it isn't DFSG compliant. Looking at it from the
author's point of view, the author may feel that Debian's definition of
"free" is wrong and his is right. So he may also think about Debian that
"there is indeed something wrong that they should know about."