Matthew Garrett writes: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matthew Garrett writes: > > > >> I'm discussing definition of free software. The FSF don't believe that > >> the GFDL is a free software license. > > > > They call it free for something that Debian calls software. Why not > > harp over the ambiguous usage of "software" rather than its subset > > "free software"? I cannot imagine this conversation being any more > > productive than that one. > > We changed the social contract explicitly because not everyone defines > software to cover things like documentation. The FSF have made it clear > that they don't consider the two to be the same catagory for a very long > time.
You accept that different people mean different things when they say "software". Why is it a problem when the same applies to "free software"? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
