Defining Free Software Business
Alfred M. Szmidt
ams at gnu.org
Tue Jun 27 16:05:56 UTC 2006
The fact that PGP source was distributed as a literary work should
be a start for anyone who is not sure about this.
The PGP source was non-free.
The fact that many documents or books include code fragments and
significant code fragments should be another clue;
Not really. I suggest you read the license:
| If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we
| recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of
| free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to
| permit their use in free software.
Different rights are required for different works. It is as simple as
> 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.
It is the case, Debian gives space, distributes non-free software, and
explicitly supports non-free software. Just because you and MJ like
to insist that "It isn't the case" doesn't make it any less true.
If Debian was so pure and wonderful, then it would be listed as a 100%
free software system and recommended by the GNU project. But it
isn't, since Debian includes non-free software.
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.
No, I mean Debian the project as a whole, every part of the project.
Including Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/k*BSD, etc etc
etc. Once again you go after a straw man, it is getting quite boring
More information about the Discussion