On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 03:32:28AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > rationale : > > > > 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I don't understand your point. > > On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 06:31:03PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote: > > Could the point be "Free software" as in FSF's free software > > definition versus "Free software" as in Debian Free Software > > Guidlines? > > Not really, not when you consider that you were responding to: > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 09:51:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > [And, as an aside, I can see the advantage of building a > > > free-software-developer oriented debian subset which consists of only > > > software which can be combined with GPLed software -- without any > > > restrictions beyond those allowed in the GPL.] > > Here, I was suggesting that there would be value >>to developers<< > in having a debian subset which consisted of miscible software. > > As it happens, both FSF and Debian distribute software which > can't be combined with GPLed software to form a program.
What i thought was : - if im not free to mix the code with other code it is not fully free - the easiest and the most elegant way to make such distro is by having additional section almost-free Then all almost-free soft go from main to almost-free Te rest is easy to predicate
