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