On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 08:03:38AM -0600, Stan Johnson wrote: > Some people find it to be important to install only free software. > > If hfsprogs were truly non-free, then an alternative would need to be > found, since hfsprogs provides required functionality. > > I read the above links, which lead to this analysis: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00573.html > > Is it really correct that debian-legal has concluded that hfsprogs is > not DFSG-free? Or is the above analysis an opinion from someone who is > not a Debian lawyer? > > In this case, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) disagrees, saying "The > Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a free > software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a > license that would qualify." > > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html > > I would generally accept FSF legal analyses and opinions over the legal > (or non-legal) analyses and opinions from anyone associated with any > specific GNU/Linux distribution.
FSF created a documentation license that is non-free in Debian. So FSF doesn't seem like a good judge of what is or is not free. Their focus is a lot more narrow than Debian's in terms of what freedom's users should have. Reading the entry from debian-legal, I would think that it is absolutely correct that it is non-free in Debian. -- Len Sorensen