Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] in light of the disagreements > between Debian and the FSF over what constitutes a Free license (the > GNU "Free" Documentation License being one prominent example[1]).
That's not the disagreement, as far as I can tell. I know we're lazy, but "free" is often a shorthand for "free software" here. Neither Debian nor the FSF claim the FDL to be a free *software* licence. The disagreement is whether that's important or even sensible. The FSF have a vague definition of what they consider free *documentation* and the main difference with free software is "I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books." http://gnu.hands.com/philosophy/free-doc.html Unfortunately, that even applies to articles which are permanently attached to FSF's "free documentation" manuals. Making a DFDG will need at least one GR and it would need to be weaker than the DFSG if it's going to accommodate the FSF position, which means the border needs to be tightly controlled so as not to permit non-free software. There's not been anyone yet who's come up with a reliable quick test to seperate "software" and "documentation" (not surprising, as I think they're overlapping sets), so each case would want consensus built and that's a scary amount of work, especially to support some other group's totally arbitrary and inconsistent position. I think that's a summary. -- MJR/slef http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
