Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Talking about software distributions on the list

[Simon Ward]

On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 12:45:17PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Yes.  In the first guideline, calling something that meets the
> Guidelines for Free System Distributions a free software distribution
> is inaccurate.  It may contain non-program software which is not free
> software, but free according to some weaker criteria, such as FSF's
> free documentation.  Even RMS wouldn't say that free documentation is
> free software - he claimed the question doesn't matter.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html
> 
> So, such things should only be called free system distributions.

I think trying to make that distinction is confusing. Let’s not make it
more complex than it already is.

For the purposes of this, a free system distribution or free software
distribution is to meet the Guidelines for Free System Distributions,
which specifically excludes the types of documentation that are
considered non‐DFSG‐free:

    ““Information for practical use” includes software, documentation,
    fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications. It
    does not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than
    functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment.”

A DFSG‐free system that also gets rid of support/promotion of non‐free
software might be considered “more free” than those that only just meet
the requirements, but I haven’t tried to classify systems this far.
Putting more marks on the scale might improve accuracy, but it also
makes it more complex for discussion.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature