Re: QPL and non-free
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +0000, Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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
> > there.
>
> 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.
Why do you think it is supposed to lead to nearly 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
> software license.
The FSF distinguishes between software and documentation, and Debian
refuses to. This makes the FSF's freeness claims about the GFDL
relevant.
> >> 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.
Members of the community will have that problem anyway, since
different people have both different values and different
interpretations of fact. Examples include the Apache 2 license GPL
compatibility question, the OpenSSL GPL incompatibility, the
distinction between "free software" and OSI's "open source"
definition, and so fourt.
Michael Poole
Reply to: