Re: QPL and non-free
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +0000, Matthew Garrett <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Francesco Poli <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C