Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What the FSF considers software vs. documentation is not relevant to the
> DFSG.
>
> What matters is whether Debian applies the DFSG to a work, irrespective
> of whether the work is categorized by its author, the FSF, or Debian as
> "software", "documentation", or "fried green tomatoes".
I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is "Debian Will
Remain 100% Free Software". The obvious reading of this is that anything
that is not free software cannot be in Debian.
This includes non-free software AND free non-software. This is no problem
in my view of the world, because every sequence of bits is software IMO,
and I don't believe anyone is considering adding anything that's not a
sequence of bits.
Those who believe that there are non-software things that can go on a CD
or FTP server have to find their own way to reconcile the confusion caused
by the phrase "100% free software". They should either be arguing that
those things are not part of Debian or that Debian should change it's
policy to include free non-software.
Because I don't hear many arguments along those lines, I tend to assume
that people are like me in believing that if it can be a file on a
computer, it's software. I want to avoid the other possible conclusion,
that people are willing to ignore their interpretation of the definition
of Debian.
> I don't have a problem with putting fried green tomatoes in main as long
> as they're DFSG-free fried green tomatoes. ;-)
Normally I agree with Brandon, but here we differ. FGT are clearly
hardware, and I'd object for the same reason I'd object if any other
physical medium were proposed to become part of Debian.
> On a more serious note, the position you're stating is a false
> alternative. People who would rather see non-DFSG-free documentation in
> main are trying to say that their opponents would exclude DFSG-free
> documentation from main because it's not software, not because it's not
> DFSG-free. That argument is ass backwards, and dishonest.
THIS I agree with. Whether to include non-software and whether to include
non-free items are independent discussions. I believe the answers are
"no" and "hell no", but those who believe that docs and pictures aren't
software really really ought to be screaming that they should be removed
or the definition of Debian changed.
I hope that Debian someday takes a position that reconciles the two (like
stating that we consider software to be anything that is pure information
expressed in a sequence of bits), but I'm not that worried about it
for three reasons:
1) I personally care more about the freedom than about the nature of the
contents of Debian.
2) I don't see anyone proposing we put non-software (by my definition)
into Debian.
3) It's hard to imagine many non-software items (again,
software=information to me) that can be DSFG-free.
> The important trait of a copyrighted work for Debian is its licensing,
> not what ontological category someone has elected to place it in.
This I also agree with, but it's a spectrum rather than an absolute. I'd
bend on the "no non-software" rule long before I'd bend on the "no
non-free items" rule, but both are important to me.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: