Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the F DL
Georg C. F. Greve <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> || On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:30:17 +0200
> || Georg C. F. Greve <email@example.com> wrote:
> gg> That was also discussed about the GPL.
> gg> Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they
> gg> couldn't take parts of GPL'ed software and compile them into
> gg> their proprietary software any way they liked.
> I just realized that it was probably not wise to use proprietary
> software in that example as people might get more upset about it.
> In case anyone felt personally insulted: I apologize, this was not my
> So please allow me to change that paragraph to
> Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they
> couldn't take random parts of GPL'ed software and compile them into
> their Free Software without taking the GPL into account.
> As legal proceedings are the same and this will hopefully increase my
> chances of being understood correctly.
I disregarded your comment the first time because it wasn't productive.
But what you are in effect trying to accomplish (whether or not it's
done on purpose) is to paint yourself as the _free_ representative.
A bystander reading the above would agree with you and perhaps assume
that we don't.
In fact, we're saying that the invariants parts aren't free for the
basically the same reason the advertising clause of the old BSD was
bad. Except that the invariant sections are much worse, since they
apply to actual content and not simply source acknowledgement.