On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as
freeness guidelines.
But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what
free software (a term
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wesley J. Landaker writes:
Readers should also note that the FSF believes[1] that the QPL is a free
license; but it's not GPL compatible.
This does not mean a lot. They believe the same thing of the GNU FDL,
but the FDL is non-DFSG-free in the
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness
guidelines.
But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free
software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is. If the DFSG are
wildly divergent from the
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is completely irrelevant. The FSF doesn't use the DFSG as freeness
guidelines.
But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what free
software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is.
4 matches
Mail list logo