Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:28:21AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > 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.
> If they fail our own guidelines for Free Software they are not free, hence
> non-free. Calling them semi-free suggest that they are not, which is wrong.
> Calling them so is only sham and will contribute to confusion.
tell me, is grey black or is it white?
PS: excluding the last sentence, what you say above is why i prefer the term
'almost-free' to 'semi-free' - "almost" is more perjorative than "semi", it has
implications of failure, of inadequacy.