Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:44:23PM -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 
> >>RMS has always maintained that there's a difference between Free and 
> >>Open Source.  And since the Open Source Definition is based Debian's 
> >>guidelines, I guess he's right!
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >Debian does not ascribe to the OSD.
> > 
> >
> True, but it's well-nigh impossible for a license to be DFSG-non-Free, 
> yet be Open Source.

Nonsense. OSI has on several occasions approved of licenses that
neither Debian nor the FSF considered free (I'd have to go digging to
remember which, but I think they're documented on the FSF's "Why we
don't agree with OSI" page). However, I don't believe it's possible
for Debian to consider a license free that the FSF would not.

We do *not* ascribe to the OSD. We do not agree with the decisions of
OSI in every case. Debian is "free software", not "open source".
Always has been. Your argument could equally have been written:

"Since the Open Source Definition is indirectly[0] derived from the FSF's
definition of Free Software, the FSF follows the OSD".

It's nonsense. And it's wrong. The difference has always been between
Debian and OSI, not Debian and the FSF.

[0] via the DFSG, which is a superset of the FSF's "Free Software"
    constraints

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature