On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 01:27:41PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Quoting Stephen Stafford <ssta@pol.ac.uk>: > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > > > > > Let's play fair now: > > > > > > >From WordNet (r) 1.7 : > > > > > > software > > > n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules > > > and associated documentation pertaining to the operation > > > of a computer system and that are stored in read/write > > > memory; "the market for software is expected to expand" > > > > > > I do not consider those files are "associated documentation". They > > > do not document the program they come with, unlike the manual. > > > > > > > If the files are not "associated" then why are they THERE? If they are not > If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being > there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software > advocacy. If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG. If you have a problem with this, write a GR -- but stop with the pointless grandstanding. Oh, and where the GFDL is concerned, what you apparently mean to say is, "I see nothing wrong with requiring all distributors to also distribute Free Software advocacy". I do: it's a restriction on freedom. > > that a "verbatim copying only" license is Free?) > I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be > considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall > not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you > wrote it, and so on. > There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom. We shall not distribute it. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp_YAzDcXLEv.pgp
Description: PGP signature