Defining Free Software Business

[Sam Liddicott]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>
>    There is little to choose between Fedora Core and Debian's main
>    IMO, except Fedora Core includes non-free-software FDL-covered
>    works
>
> FDL covered are not software, so it cannot be `non-free software', nor
> can it be `free software', since it isn't `software' to begin with.
>   
I've enjoyed THAT particular debate and in my mind the case is not clear
that FDL covered things are not software.
The fact that PGP source was distributed as a literary work should be a
start for anyone who is not sure about this.
The fact that many documents or books include code fragments and
significant code fragments should be another clue;
And please don't think about literary programming.
However; let us not repeat THAT debate, my point is that because
Alfred's claim :

>FDL covered are not software, so it cannot be `non-free software', nor
>can it be `free software', since it isn't `software' to begin with.

is not acceptable as a true to many people including me. Even if he says
it twice. I suppose in the same way that Alfred still thinks that (as he
says):

> Debian still recommends, condones, and supports non-free software.
> Doesn't make it any better.  Debian GNU/Hurd like Debian GNU/Linux are
> equally bad in this regard, since both contain non-free software.
>   
Despite it being made most clear that this is not the case.

Perhaps he feels that where Debian = many people associated with Debian
and "recommends, condones and supports" are broad, something is bound to
nearly stick; but these general claims don't overcome the specific
replies that have been made to this charge.

I think GBN = Canonicalized Saints; but most people are just looking for
a nice Priest.

Sam