Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Andrew Suffield <address@hidden>

    > > The FSF has never tried to define "free" in some general sense.  They
    > > (and RMS) are pretty narrowly focused.  They have a very nuanced
    > > assesment of the meaning of "free" and the cliched account of the
    > > "Debian position" is that Debian has a very blunt and somewhat idiotic
    > > conception.

    > It's quite simple, really. RMS has stated that (a) the GFDL is
    > not a "free software" license, and (b) it is not meant to be,
    > but he has ignored questions as to what "free" means in its
    > name, or what constitutes a "free documentation" license 

He has not ignored such questions.

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html

for example.  I've seen numerous writings by RMS on the topic over the
years and knew at once that you are being unfair in your summary of
his position.

A couple of months ago I went and reviewed a few years of the Debian
legal mailing list discussions with and at RMS on this topic.   Your
reply here reminds me of those.   To call the exchange a "discussion"
is being charitable to Debian folks who advocated for (again, a
charitable description) a change to documentation licensing.

    > (while the FSF's definition of "free software" is quite clear
    > and agreeable).

More interesting than the definition, I think, is the spirit of its
aim.  That spirit is consistent with GFDL.   That spirit is why v2+ is
a sane choice.


    > We don't know what he's thinking, because he refuses to talk
    > about it. 

He does not.   He refused at one point to suffer further abuse on the
debian legal list.   That's not the same thing.

    > But we're pretty sure that we're only interested in
    > "free software", and not this other "free" stuff, and we can
    > conclude that when he says "free" he doesn't always mean "free
    > software". So now we have to be careful.

Well, what is _your_ definition of "free", since you think it is
applicable as a touchstone which must be used to test any FSF
licensee?

-t