Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
* Steve Langasek:
>> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
>> be interpreted as "software".
> No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to amend
> the DFSG and this still says "program", not "software", I don't see how you
> can claim it *has* to be read as "software".
So you think that the DFSG clauses 2, 6, 7, 8 do not apply to
documentation, only to executables?
This is certainly an interesting position. Whether it's a valid one
is indeed harder to decide than I thought.