I don't know about the particularities of the English language, but what varies there is not the DEFINITION of Freedom, but the ACCEPTANCE of non-free stuff.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html "Specifically, free software means users have the four essential freedoms[1]: (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program in source code form, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to distribute modified versions." [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html This definition is pretty objective. What varies between GNU/Linux distros is their concern about ethics and coherence within themselves. Em Dom, 2012-12-02 às 11:18 +0200, Alexey Eromenko escreveu: > The definition of Freedom changes from one distro to the next. > > Examples: > Red Hat allows for non-free firmware, but no patented codecs (only WebM/OGG). > Debian allows for patented-codecs (MP3/MPEG4) and cloud-dependent > software (such as twitter-plugins), but only free firmware. Go figure. > > I have written a VERY interesting article "Why I consider > cloud-dependent packages as non-free software ?" > Will start a separate topic on it. >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
