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

Re: QPL and non-free

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +0000, Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> said: 

> Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info> wrote:
>> That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as
>> freeness guidelines.

> But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what
> free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is.

        Whatever gave you the idea? The DFSG are supposed to define
 what _Debian_ means by "free" in the social contract. The FSF is over

> If the DFSG are wildly divergent from the FSF's viewpoint, we need
> to figure out how and why.

        Err, that's simple. We are not the BORG. We have different
 views -- just look at us hosting non-free software, which made
 the FSF unable to recommend us. And the GFDL, which we call
 non-free. Different bodies. Different goals. Different
 optinons. Different views. Gee, I would be surprise if our definition
 of free software was identical, actually.

> Having two different definitions of free software does nothing to
> help the community.

        Diversity of opinions harms the community? How fragile it must
 be, in your view.

I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos. Albert Einstein,
on the randomness of quantum mechanics
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: