This might actually be true; Debian defends the right to *repurpose* a piece of software, making it usable for any purpose, not just the one for which it was originally intended. RMS has actually not defended that, and if you look at his writings carefully, he doesn't seem to think it's a necessary freedom. If he really believes this, that would in fact be a fundamental difference. (I'm guessing he would also find himself in disagreement with the majority of free software developers, but I don't have any numbers or anything.) It would be interesting to ask him point blank about that, but he probably wouldn't answer.In any event, RMS has eg written on the GFDL: ] There is no disconnect between our purpose and our methods. Our ] licenses grant the freedoms that we are fighting for. We are ] following the purposes and criteria we developed in the 80s.] ] Lately Debian has interpreted the DFSG in a way that is substantially] more strict than our criteria of free software, rejecting software ] licenses that we consider free, totally aside from documentation ] licenses such as the GFDL. If there is a disconnect, it is between ] our methods (and purposes) and Debian's.
-- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00702.html Cheers, aj
Incidentally, has anyone else noticed RMS's use of the royal "we" in these and other recent statements?
He's never named another individual who agrees with him on these points. There was one other FSF person who appeared to have similar views (Georg Greve), but he had some much weirder and even more poorly defended claims which RMS never made, including the idea that it was legally necessary in France to prohibit modification of essays without the author's consent.