Re: Use of the Debian name for websites
Andrew Saunders <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> [...] in light of the disagreements
> between Debian and the FSF over what constitutes a Free license (the
> GNU "Free" Documentation License being one prominent example).
That's not the disagreement, as far as I can tell. I know we're
lazy, but "free" is often a shorthand for "free software" here.
Neither Debian nor the FSF claim the FDL to be a free *software*
licence. The disagreement is whether that's important or
The FSF have a vague definition of what they consider
free *documentation* and the main difference with free
software is "I don't believe that it is essential for
people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles
and books." http://gnu.hands.com/philosophy/free-doc.html
Unfortunately, that even applies to articles which are
permanently attached to FSF's "free documentation" manuals.
Making a DFDG will need at least one GR and it would need to
be weaker than the DFSG if it's going to accommodate the FSF
position, which means the border needs to be tightly controlled
so as not to permit non-free software. There's not been anyone
yet who's come up with a reliable quick test to seperate
"software" and "documentation" (not surprising, as I think
they're overlapping sets), so each case would want consensus
built and that's a scary amount of work, especially to support
some other group's totally arbitrary and inconsistent position.
I think that's a summary.