Marcus wrote: > No. There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF > exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way round (although > the GFDL might become such a case).
The vim license was listed as a free license on gnu.org while debian-legal debated it. (A debate I personally thought was worthwhile and I agree with the arguments brought up by people here.) The old BSD (obnoxiuous ad clause) is and was listed as free (but GPL-incompatible), while it's been considered DFSG-nonfree. I think the reason that the DFSG differs from the FSF (four freedoms) is that the DFSG tries to be more detailed (and fails - there are places where it is too vague) about what goes and doesn't go. That's why I think interpretative guidelines to the guidelines is a seemingly absurd, but good (and possibly necessary) idea (even though I constantly keep changing my mind on how harsh or permissive these guideline guidelines should be). Sunnanvind (headache and hungry and mad at school. Hope it doesn't shine through.)
