Re: non-free --> non-dfsg
>>"Ossama" == Ossama Othman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> 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.
Ossama> But that argument assumes that DFSG-free is the be-all and
Ossama> end-all of the definition of free software.
As far as Debian is concerned, it is. Notice how we call it
the Debian FSG?
Ossama> The author may believe that his software is free even though
Ossama> it isn't DFSG compliant.
The author is entitled to his/her opinion, of course. What
does that have to do with us?
Ossama> Looking at it from the author's point of view, the author may
Ossama> feel that Debian's definition of "free" is wrong and his is
Ossama> right. So he may also think about Debian that "there is
Ossama> indeed something wrong that they should know about."
This is all very interesting, and so on, but where is this
leading? All kinds of people may have all kinds of opinion about
Debian. The point is?
...I would go so far as to suggest that, were it not for our ego and
concern to be different, the African apes would be included in our
family, the Hominidae. Richard Leakey
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E