Matthew Garrett writes: > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:08:13 +0000, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > said: > > > >> But the DFSG are intended to be a more detailed description of what > >> free software (a term initially defined by the FSF) is. > > > > Whatever gave you the idea? The DFSG are supposed to define > > what _Debian_ means by "free" in the social contract. The FSF is over > > there. > > At no point during the DFSG discussion does anyone seem to suggest that > we're redefining free software. Rather, we're making it clear what > aspects of freedom we care about. It's supposed to lead to pretty much > the same end result.
Why do you think it is supposed to lead to nearly the same end result? > >> If the DFSG are wildly divergent from the FSF's viewpoint, we need > >> to figure out how and why. > > > > Err, that's simple. We are not the BORG. We have different > > views -- just look at us hosting non-free software, which made > > the FSF unable to recommend us. And the GFDL, which we call > > non-free. Different bodies. Different goals. Different > > optinons. Different views. Gee, I would be surprise if our definition > > of free software was identical, actually. > > The GFDL is a red herring. The FSF don't try to claim it's a free > software license. The FSF distinguishes between software and documentation, and Debian refuses to. This makes the FSF's freeness claims about the GFDL relevant. > >> Having two different definitions of free software does nothing to > >> help the community. > > > > Diversity of opinions harms the community? How fragile it must > > be, in your view. > > Diversity of opinions hurts the members of the community who find that a > license they thought was free isn't by our standards. I'm not sure who > it actually benefits. Members of the community will have that problem anyway, since different people have both different values and different interpretations of fact. Examples include the Apache 2 license GPL compatibility question, the OpenSSL GPL incompatibility, the distinction between "free software" and OSI's "open source" definition, and so fourt. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
