News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software by markokocic on Friday November 09, 2012 @12:11PM (#4763694)
If it were really established that in software free means "Free" the way FSF defines it, then we would not have this 100+ messages discussion here arguing what is free, and in which context.

Maybe if would be easier if instead of "free" we started using more precise terms like Free(c)FSF, $Free, or name actual licenses, since each one goes under some assumptions.

Re:Evil, or why Douglas Crockford is harmful to Free Software by lmm on Friday November 09, 2012 @12:34PM (#4763791)
My position depends on "free" being a broadly-applicable concept. If I'd said "Crockford's license is not DFSG-compatible" then the response would (quite rightly) have been "well, who cares, the DFSG is just Debian's set of arbitrary rules". The reason the line between free and non-free matters so much from a pragmatic perspective is that there is this consensus, the criteria for being included in Debian are (more-or-less) the same as those for getting free hosting on sourceforge, or for being able to use the OSI trademark, or...