Re: QPL and non-free
Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> 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
>> time.
>
> You accept that different people mean different things when they say
> "software". Why is it a problem when the same applies to "free
> software"?
The fact that different people mean different things when they say
"software" was enough for us to stop using the word "software" where the
distinction was important. The logical follow-on is that we should
either get people to agree on what "free software" means or stop using
the phrase "free software" where the distinction is important.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: