Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] Debian should move all GPL sw to non-free

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:

    Tom> When Debian takes the position that GFDL is not free, many
    Tom> people listen to that.  We can expect many people to
    Tom> uncritically take Debian's word for it.  If Debian's
    Tom> collective reasoning to reach the conclusion that GFDL is not
    Tom> free is flawed, then many people are misled.

But doesn't rms agree with Debian that the GFDL as written is not a
free software license?  OTOH, Debian has no position on whether the
GFDL is a free documentation license, because they just don't care.[1]

AFAIK, Debian distributes software, and everything it distributes is
software by its terminology.  It's definitional.  (Srivasta's page
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html indicates
that some Debian people disagree, but "it's _all_ software" is the
most commonly held, and the most coherent, position among Debian
developers.)  If you want to effectively reverse the conclusion that
the GFDL is non-free, you need to attack the premise that software and
documentation can be lumped together for the purpose of creating a
software distribution.

But isn't that inherently a matter for the distributor's choice?



Footnotes: 
[1]  Actually, the "documentation freedoms" Srivasta lists seem
incompatible with the GFDL, so I guess they do implicitly have a
position.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.