Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:13:59PM +0400, olive wrote:To answer, Patrick remark; a search in this list will show you that I have considerably discussed and defended my opinion even if I do not agree with most of the posters.You have? You elided the bulk of Don's response wholesale, and your arguments often seem to reduce to poorly-defended assertions of what you think the DFSG should mean. And to repeat myself from a response to a previous poster making your argument,This is just more wedging, trying to abuse the fact that Debian allows invariant license texts to squeeze in other invariant stuff. I would suggest anyone engaging in such wedging carefully reevaluate whether what they're doing is really in the best interests of Debian; or whether they're just trying to contrive a way to pound Debian into "agreement" with the FSF.[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00493.html
As I have already said in a previous message let's say we disagree. Any opinion in contradiction with yours will be "poorly defended". Some of the DFSG (expecially the patch close) show that the interpretation of what free is was broader at the beginning than the current interpretation of the DFSG (I am right to say that if this patch close didn't exist; you would have said that a software under such license obviously violates the DFSG?).
I was reading the page "http://www.debian.org/intro/free";; it basically says that "free software" is about the same as "open source software" and "free software" is linked to the definition of free given by the GNU project! This page seems to says that the DFSG is a mean to precize the definition of Free given by the GNU project. I think this was probably the case at the beginning of Debian but now this page seems terribly misleading.
At last, you complained that the tone of my messages was not good; I invite you to revise the tone of your answers. "Everyone with a straight face must disagree with me"; I try to "abuse", etc...
Olive