Defining Free Software Business
sam at liddicott.com
Tue Jun 27 16:53:48 UTC 2006
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
> 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
> 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.
More information about the Discussion