Re: QPL and non-free
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +0000, Matthew Garrett <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> 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
At no point during the DFSG discussion does anyone seem to suggest that
we're redefining free software. Rather, we're making it clear what
aspects of freedom we care about. It's supposed to lead to pretty much
the same end result.
>> 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.
The GFDL is a red herring. The FSF don't try to claim it's a free
>> 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.
Diversity of opinions hurts the members of the community who find that a
license they thought was free isn't by our standards. I'm not sure who
it actually benefits.
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com