On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:24:44PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > > The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free. > > > > By the definitions we have given "non-free", it is exactly that. > > If it was software, it was non-free. Our definitions are only about > software. The GNU FDL is about documentation, which is a totally > different. > > Besides that, are our definitions right? That's not for me to decide. Debian has one definition - software. We define Debian as entirely software and specifically entirely free software. We hold everything to that definition currently, though there clearly is not a consensus that we should continue doing so. Debian has no concept of non-software and our only metric of freeness is the DFSG. The GNU FDL fails to do this. We are hypocrites to make an exception just because it's a GNU license. Either the license is a mistake (as I believe) or our method of determining a thing's freeness needs to be relaxed. I don't intend to support relaxing our definition of free very much. -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net> Not many fishes <Endy> Actually, I think I'll wait for potato to be finalised before installing debian. <Endy> That should be soon, I'm hoping. :) <knghtbrd> Endy: You obviously know very little about Debian.
Attachment:
pgpM4FTEMwECL.pgp
Description: PGP signature