On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 07:10:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Fredrik Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > We may all express them differently, but I'm pretty sure that RMS's "four > > freedoms" are the foundation on which we all base our conception > > of Free software. > > Yes, with the proviso that we don't necessarily agree with everything > else RMS says about free software. Just to give one example, in > <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, RMS says > > | It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have > | distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a > | copy of it, you must send one. > > which we (i.e., the consensus interpretation of the DFSG) flatly > disagree with.
Another example is that RMS considers the original (unclarified) Artistic License too ambiguous to be free, while we list it as an example of a DFSG-free licence. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
