Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:05:37AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > ALMOST FREE
> > -----------
>
> While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package doesn't meet
> the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our mirrors. According to our
> own guidelines the packages are not free, since they fail one or more clauses
> of our guidelines. Calling then "almost free" or "semi-free" is only sham.
sorry, but you are wrong.
most of the packages in that group *ARE* almost-free. many of them even
(almost half, at a guess) qualify as 'semi-free' by the FSF's overly strict
definition.
admittedly, i should have called that section "OTHER" because there were
several packages in there that did not qualify as almost or semi free, but that
was a mistake due to tiredness and haste rather than a "sham".
craig
PS: it's nice to see people nitpicking over trivial details - it makes a
refreshing change from actually engaging with the substance. well done! who
wants to have a productive debate, anyway? far better to go around and around
in circles, flaming each other over spelling and grammar.
Reply to: