Hiroki Horiuchi from Japan > After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is > really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition > insufficient for Debian Project. > > Am I right?
I don't think so. The DFSG dates from 1997. The Free Software Definition only got that name around 2001. Back in 1998, there were only three freedoms... see http://web.archive.org/web/19980126185518/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Think of them as two parallel developments for similar concepts - one is a definition, the other is a set of guidelines to follow. Like http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq#four_freedoms says: "[the FSF's four freedoms] are the Free Software Foundation's articulation of what it believes all software users deserve. (Note that full exercise of Freedoms 1 and 3 requires access to the source code.) They are elegantly phrased, and arguably an improvement in some ways on the earlier DFSG. However they refer to exactly the same set of freedoms as the DFSG. If a license is inconsistent with the FSF's four freedoms, you can be sure that Debian will also consider it non-free." Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1setts-00023h...@petrol.towers.org.uk
