I think this is an interesting and important discussion, but it's off topic for linux-utf8, so I've set some header lines in an attempt to divert the discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'm sure some people will pick it up and use it that way. Still, a term > in daily use only means what the general public thinks of it. And > that's still for-free software. That's hard to change. Bram, there's no need to retreat to a position like that. It seems that many people who understand and care about free software think that Vim's licence is a free software licence. Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Our definition of free software is the foundation on which the free > software community has grown for two decades. You can formulate your > own criterion if you wish, but we will continue to present ours as > "the" definition of free software. > The license says that if you distribute a modified version to anyone > you must distribute a copy to the maintainer. It is this singling out > of one particular person for special privileges that makes the license > fail to qualify as free software. Free software includes the freedom > to decide when you want to redistribute. RMS, you are probably aware of the following document even if you don't agree with it: The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines Do you agree that Vim's licence qualifies as "free" according to the criteria listed in that document? Do you have a reference to a document that lists your criteria for software to qualify as free? Do you want to propose a change to the DFSG? I'm not an expert on this stuff by any means, but my impression is that licences that give special rights to one particular person are often considered obnoxious, but can still qualify as free as far as Debian is concerned. Edmund - Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
