Re: QPL and non-free
Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> 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?
Because that's the impression I get from reading the discussion that led
to them being written.
>> 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.
I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that
the GFDL is a free software license.
>> 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.
None of these cases involve two different definitions of an existing
term. If we say "The QPL is not a free software license" while the FSF
are saying "The QPL is a (poor quality) free software license", how is
that not going to result in unhappiness?
The Apache foundation don't claim that you should treat their license as
GPL compatible. See
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html .
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: