Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett writes: >> 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?
Because that's the impression I get from reading the discussion that led to them being written. >> 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. I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that the GFDL is a free software license. >> 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. None of these cases involve two different definitions of an existing term. If we say "The QPL is not a free software license" while the FSF are saying "The QPL is a (poor quality) free software license", how is that not going to result in unhappiness? The Apache foundation don't claim that you should treat their license as GPL compatible. See http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html . -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
