Re: is this free?
On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 03:32:28AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > rationale :
> > > > 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
> > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > I don't understand your point.
> On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 06:31:03PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> > Could the point be "Free software" as in FSF's free software
> > definition versus "Free software" as in Debian Free Software
> > Guidlines?
> Not really, not when you consider that you were responding to:
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 09:51:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > [And, as an aside, I can see the advantage of building a
> > > free-software-developer oriented debian subset which consists of only
> > > software which can be combined with GPLed software -- without any
> > > restrictions beyond those allowed in the GPL.]
> Here, I was suggesting that there would be value >>to developers<<
> in having a debian subset which consisted of miscible software.
> As it happens, both FSF and Debian distribute software which
> can't be combined with GPLed software to form a program.
What i thought was :
- if im not free to mix the code with other code it is not
- the easiest and the most elegant way to make such distro is
by having additional section almost-free
Then all almost-free soft go from main to almost-free
Te rest is easy to predicate