Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > There is little to choose between Fedora Core and Debian's main > IMO, except Fedora Core includes non-free-software FDL-covered > works > > FDL covered are not software, so it cannot be `non-free software', nor > can it be `free software', since it isn't `software' to begin with. > I've enjoyed THAT particular debate and in my mind the case is not clear that FDL covered things are not software. The fact that PGP source was distributed as a literary work should be a start for anyone who is not sure about this. The fact that many documents or books include code fragments and significant code fragments should be another clue; And please don't think about literary programming. However; let us not repeat THAT debate, my point is that because Alfred's claim :
>FDL covered are not software, so it cannot be `non-free software', nor >can it be `free software', since it isn't `software' to begin with. is not acceptable as a true to many people including me. Even if he says it twice. I suppose in the same way that Alfred still thinks that (as he says): > Debian still recommends, condones, and supports non-free software. > Doesn't make it any better. Debian GNU/Hurd like Debian GNU/Linux are > equally bad in this regard, since both contain non-free software. > Despite it being made most clear that this is not the case. Perhaps he feels that where Debian = many people associated with Debian and "recommends, condones and supports" are broad, something is bound to nearly stick; but these general claims don't overcome the specific replies that have been made to this charge. I think GBN = Canonicalized Saints; but most people are just looking for a nice Priest. Sam _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
