I inadvertantly posted this to the newsgroup linux.debian.legal not knowing the gateway between the debian-legal mailing list and linux.debian.legal is unidirectional (mailing list -> newsgroup). My apologies for those of you who read linux.debian.legal and see this twice.
Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF > exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way round (although > the GFDL might become such a case). Prominent example is the Artistic > License (older version), which we advertise as free software license, > while the FSF does not. It has worked with the Perl people on a revised > Artistic License that resolves the issue. At the Q&A following his lecture in Chicago on Halloween, 2001, RMS mentioned a problem he had just found out about at the time--Debian's different (I believe RMS used the term "weaker" which may be more appropriate) standard of free software compelled the FSF to make their own version of -something-. I understood the something to be a GNU Hurd distribution. In other words, I came away with the impression the FSF would make their own GNU Hurd distribution to deliver a completely free software operating system according to FSF's definition of free software. Did I misunderstand what RMS was talking about? If not, is this FSF distribution still going forward?
