Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?

Hi, On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 08:13:30PM +0900, Hiroki Horiuchi wrote: > # debian-user is no longer in To: > > After reading your words, I think that if talking *only* about non-free > GFDLed document problem, the difference between DFSG and Free Software > Definition does not matter. ... this ma

Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?

MJ Ray writes: > Think of them as two parallel developments for similar concepts - > one is a definition, the other is a set of guidelines to follow. > Like http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq#four_freedoms says: > > "[the FSF's four freedoms] are the Free Software Foundation's > artic

Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?

Hiroki Horiuchi from Japan > After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is > really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition > insufficient for Debian Project. > > Am I right? I don't think so. The DFSG dates from 1997. The Free Software Definitio

Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?

Please see the threads that led to for exhaustive discussion about the GFDL vs. the DFSG. On 08/06/12 16:34, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > I cannot think of a case where someone > modifying the document would, when acting in a good faith manner, want > to a

Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 08 iun 12, 10:58:48, Hiroki Horiuchi wrote: >> >> After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is >> really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition >> insufficient for Debian Project. > >

Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?

# debian-user is no longer in To: After reading your words, I think that if talking *only* about non-free GFDLed document problem, the difference between DFSG and Free Software Definition does not matter. Moreover, I think that if talking *generally*, DFSG and Free Software Definition are not so

Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?

Hiroki Horiuchi writes: > I was wondering why Free Software Definition was not sufficient for > Debian Project. I thought this was permissive enough for the project. The issue is less to do with the Free Software Definition, and more to do with the FSF's position on how to apply that definition.

Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?

Hiroki Horiuchi writes: > I would like to tell you the background of my last post. […] > Then, I posted <20120531104258.ga31...@a.19290.net>. For reference, that message was posted to ‘debian-user’ http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20120531104258.ga31...@a.19290.net>. I quote it here: Hirok

Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?

# debian-legal@lists.debian.org is CCed. Sorry to be late. I would like to tell you the background of my last post. I was wondering why Free Software Definition was not sufficient for Debian Project. I thought this was permissive enough for the project. Once on twitter, I said that GNU's defini