"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org wrote:
Verbatim only? That fails to grant freedom to modify and redistribute. Do you think such a license should be called "free"?
Because music is not a functional work, and you don't need the right to `modify' it, you can have it, but it is not a nessecary right. Where as with software, it is.
Who is Alfred M. Szmidt - someone who does not even see fit to attribute the previous author quoted - to decide that we don't "need" the right to modify music but do with programs?
[...]
The is the same problem that Debian faces, labeling everything as `free software', and then excluding everything that doesn't fall into that category (like free doucmnetation, free music, etc).
The problem debian faces is that software which is not free software sometimes gets included in the distribution. It's not a new problem. Even if terms such as "free documentation" can be defined in a sane way, debian doesn't currently use them.