Re: QPL and non-free
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <email@example.com> 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.
Sure. Why not? When I want to talk about Debian's definition of
software freedom, I try to use a specific term like "DFSG-free".