Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
I inadvertantly posted this to the newsgroup linux.debian.legal not knowing
the gateway between the debian-legal mailing list and linux.debian.legal is
unidirectional (mailing list -> newsgroup). My apologies for those of you
who read linux.debian.legal and see this twice.
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF
> exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way round (although
> the GFDL might become such a case). Prominent example is the Artistic
> License (older version), which we advertise as free software license,
> while the FSF does not. It has worked with the Perl people on a revised
> Artistic License that resolves the issue.
At the Q&A following his lecture in Chicago on Halloween, 2001, RMS
mentioned a problem he had just found out about at the time--Debian's
different (I believe RMS used the term "weaker" which may be more
appropriate) standard of free software compelled the FSF to make their own
version of -something-. I understood the something to be a GNU Hurd
distribution. In other words, I came away with the impression the FSF would
make their own GNU Hurd distribution to deliver a completely free software
operating system according to FSF's definition of free software. Did I
misunderstand what RMS was talking about? If not, is this FSF distribution
still going forward?