Re: Social Contract GR's effect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:38:29AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Furthermore, any bitmap rendering of a vector drawing has to be
> removed if the vector drawing is not available, and all Postscript
> files without source code have to be removed. This audit is a
> substantial task.
Is this GR actually intended to say that source must be available for all
data? I only see it saying that all data in Debian must be Free, which
is what the social contract already said.
It doesn't seem to actually change anything at all, except to shut up
the people who insist on the old, tired arguments that documentation isn't
software and that the DFSG doesn't apply to documentation.
If this GR actualy changed anything, and "remain 100% free software" meant
something different than "remain 100% free", then there must be something
in Debian which is not software. I believe that's false. I suspect that's
why this was called an "editorial" change; it doesn't change the meaning
of the social contract, it only clarifies it.
I don't see how it could affect the release. Was the previous release plan
really based on an argument that "software" does not include firmware and
documentation?
> > Releasing sarge with a documentation shortage is probably the only
> > option.
>
> This is not an option at all.
Of course it is. Documentation doesn't become unavailable by being
moved to non-free.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: