[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Aaron Bentley
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:53:48 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Andrew Suffield wrote:

True, but it's well-nigh impossible for a license to be DFSG-non-Free, yet be Open Source.

Nonsense. OSI has on several occasions approved of licenses that
neither Debian nor the FSF considered free (I'd have to go digging to
remember which, but I think they're documented on the FSF's "Why we
don't agree with OSI" page). However, I don't believe it's possible
for Debian to consider a license free that the FSF would not.
I don't think it's impossible for a license to be crafted that technically met the DSFG criteria, but didn't reflect the spirit of Free Software. In that circumstance, the FSF might not consider it free, while some Debian folks might. I'd have thought Debian and the FSF would always agree on "Free", but look what happened with the GFDL.

We do *not* ascribe to the OSD. We do not agree with the decisions of
OSI in every case. Debian is "free software", not "open source".
Always has been. Your argument could equally have been written:

"Since the Open Source Definition is indirectly[0] derived from the FSF's
definition of Free Software, the FSF follows the OSD".
That's not what I'm saying, though. I'm saying if a license fails to meet the DFSG, it must also fail to meet the OSD. There are only a few differences between the OSD and DFSG, but as far as I can tell, the OSD is slightly more restrictive than the DFSG. Given the same interpreter, a few things could be found DFSG-free and not Open Source, but I don't believe the opposite is true. So these must be differences in interpretation.

It's nonsense. And it's wrong. The difference has always been between
Debian and OSI, not Debian and the FSF.
I find it ironic that RMS has championed "Free" license that isn't even Open Source. And look, here's RMS looking down his nose at manuals that aren't Free Software:


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]