Re: QPL and non-free
Michael Poole <email@example.com> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that
>> the GFDL is a free software license.
> They call it free for something that Debian calls software. Why not
> harp over the ambiguous usage of "software" rather than its subset
> "free software"? I cannot imagine this conversation being any more
> productive than that one.
We changed the social contract explicitly because not everyone defines
software to cover things like documentation. The FSF have made it clear
that they don't consider the two to be the same catagory for a very long
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org