On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:28:21AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > Craig Sanders wrote: > > sorry, but you are wrong. > > > > most of the packages in that group *ARE* almost-free. many of them even > > (almost half, at a guess) qualify as 'semi-free' by the FSF's overly strict > > definition. > > If they fail our own guidelines for Free Software they are not free, hence > non-free. Calling them semi-free suggest that they are not, which is wrong. > Calling them so is only sham and will contribute to confusion.
tell me, is grey black or is it white? craig PS: excluding the last sentence, what you say above is why i prefer the term 'almost-free' to 'semi-free' - "almost" is more perjorative than "semi", it has implications of failure, of inadequacy.
