On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 04:08:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > As I see it, Debian GNU/Hurd can, at most, be a system that helps people > > install, test, hack on, and play with, the Hurd as it is now. > > It indeed helps us with that. But we want it to make a real operating > system for general use.
You want to make the GNU system a real operating system for general use. Debian already is a real operating system for general use, so you can't *make* it that way. > > It can never > > fulfill RMS' dream he wrote down in the GNU Manifesto; consider the fact > > that Debian and GNU define 'Free Software' in a different way. > > Not really. Uhh, yes. GNU defines 'Free Software' by defining what 'Freedom' means, and how that applies to Software. Debian defines 'Free Software' by a list of properties a license should have; if they all apply, the software can be called 'Free' according to Debian. > The only incompatible I know of is the atistic > license. Think FDL. [...] > A very big part of Debian is implementing the GNU Coding Standards > upstream. Why change it in Debian? One could also argue that a very big part of Debian implements the FHS upstream. This argument is bogus. -- wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be "Human knowledge belongs to the world" -- From the movie "Antitrust" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
