Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:

> I don't agree with that interpretation.  "Software" can be a very
> slippery term.  I recall a friend of mine from Purdue who asserted that
> the only real software is processor microcode -- everything else is just
> data files.  To get around these ambiguities, I think it's best that
> Clause 1 be read literally.  Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software.
> That means Debian consists entirely of software which is Free.

*Yawn*.  You mean you can't tell the difference in practical contexts?
Puhleez!

> It implies through exclusion that things that aren't Free Software are
> not part of Debian.  You could interpret this to either or both of:
> 
> 1) "Software" which is not "Free" is not part of Debian;
> 2) that which is not "Software" is not part of Debian.

So the BTS, the mailing lists, the apparatus of the Debian
Constitution, the logo, and all that is now to be excluded?  Come on,
get real!  The DFSG talks about *software* and leaves unspoken all the
rest of the stuff associated with Debian.

> The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also Free But
> Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies to Software,
> Plus Some Other Stuff That Isn't Free By Any Stretch Of The Imagination
> But Which We Thought Would Be Nice To Have.

Yeah, like the mailing lists, the BTS, the logo, the Constitution, the
server resources, the bank account, and all that other stuff.  

> > So I propose that the rest of us simply not bother any further.  Or,
> > Branden, perhaps you could write a proposal that isn't you
> > more-or-less dictating what the world must be!
> 
> Hmm, must have managed to touch a nerve to elicit this burst of
> irrationality.  I didn't realize you were confusing me with Jonathan
> Swift.  

It's not irrational!  If only one person has any particular reason to
think anything needs to be done, then there's really no need for
everyone else to spend gobs of time on it.

> 2) How it is any more dictatorial in form or content that any other
> document, policy, rule, or tool that Debian uses to distinguish one
> class of things from another.

The problem is that you seem to think that *your* interpretation of
the DFSG, and all associated with it, somehow makes you the person to
declare that 32K is the limit, unlike say a proportional limit, or a
200K limit, or no limit at all.