Re: QPL and non-free
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
You accept that different people mean different things when they say
"software". Why is it a problem when the same applies to "free