[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: non-free --> non-dfsg

On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:13:09PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously David Welton wrote:
> > 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.
> You do know the OS definition is the same as the current DFSG, right?

Maybe I haven't been that vocal or active, but I have been around
since hrmm.. sometime mid '97 :-> So, of course I realize this, but
sometimes, saying Open Source is just more convenient - they just
can't argue with you (this thread ... :-) because their code is not
Open Source, period.  Given the value I place on my time, I dislike
wasting it arguing about what 'free' really is, whether it is right
that we appropriate it, etc.. (of course, I think Debian should
continue to use 'free' exactly as we have done.)

David Welton                          http://www.efn.org/~davidw 

        Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org

Reply to: